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