Thanks for the clarification Kelly, I do not usually make a distinction
because for most people it is a non-issue. If the program was fully
implemented in Java then the Java Accessibility SDK could be used to provide
the accessibility, but it would still have to be the vendor who makes this
happen. Instead most of these programs use imbedded java applets for login
and search functions as well as data retrieval from an underlying database.
A software bridge to deal with Java Script is in alpha development so we
should see this problem go away as well.

Our evaluations are based on the minimum institutional standards I have set
for Oregon State, which is full access with a text based screen reader or
PwWebSpeak. We provide PwWebSpeak system wide, and it is also an economical
purchase for most users. I would agree with you that a lot of folks who are
blind, and are computer literate would use a screen reader and one of the
mainstream browsers. Based on our experience the number would be somewhere
under 50%. This is also true for most of the colleges and universities
around the country that I work with. We established this standard primarily
based on economics, computer availability, technical proficiency of the user
(many of whom have never used a screen reader), and ease of use.

If the student or user is being supported by an outside agency then they
most likely would have access and familiarity with a decent screen reader,
if not then they typically come to campus with no technology, or at the best
a dos based screen reader which puts us right back were we started. I can
get them up and using WebSpeak in about 5 minutes, and then we will start
training on a screen reader, which takes a little longer :). This allows
them to get there web based work done, while they are learning to use the
technology that they will really need to complete their degree program.

In an ideal world every student would come to campus ready to use the
technology they need to pursue their goals. Reality is a little different.

I should note that we also tested the software with a couple of different
screen readers, and had similar results. I did not do a program by program
evaluation using screen readers, because the basic problems still were
present. This is due to the interfaces these products use to retrieve data
from the underlying database. This also does not change the bottom line
issue of these products, that they are unusable by a significant number of
users with print related disabilities

Ron Stewart



-----Original Message-----
From: Kelly Ford [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2000 12:50 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Accessibility of Webpacs


Hello Ron and Everyone Else,

I noted the number of tools listed as inaccessible in Ron's list because of
Java.  My understanding, from personal experience with several of these
products, is that it is the use of JavaScript, not full Java that causes
the problem.  This brings up an important question.

At what point should accessibility standards be adjusted to reflect the
prevailing use of a certain type of access technology.  The vast majority
of people who are blind do not browse with either Lynx or PW Webspeak.  I
don't have formal statistics but would guess that 95 percent of people who
are blind use some sort of Windows screen reader and graphical browser.

Kelly

Barrier-free Web Design Online Workshop
Workshop starts June 7, 2000
http://www.rit.edu/~easi/workshops/easiweb.htm

Barrier-free Web Design Online Workshop
Workshop starts June 7, 2000
http://www.rit.edu/~easi/workshops/easiweb.htm