I mostly agree with Eric here but attribute the variations in web information/screen reader combination to a lack of acceptance on the part of web developers, browser authors and, to a big extent, screen access vendors.
It is true that Apple is setting its own accessibility standards but, for all intents and purposes, these are exclusive to desktop applications and do not apply to web based information. The good news is that the Web Accessibility Initiative (www.w3c.org/wai) has guidelines for web authors in the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG - pronounce wick cag), the User Agent Guidelines (UAG) which describe to the AT all of the items from the WCAG that they need to handle and Aria, the new standard for making web applications like googledocs really accessible. The Access Board (I think they are www.accessboard.gov but I'm not sure) sets the Section 508 standards for web content and how user agents (screen readers and such) should present the information to the user. Finally, there are all sorts of national and international standards and guidelines from around the world that need to be followed with their particular bureaucracies. Fortunately, most of these standards and guidelines are very similar. If one browser outperforms another with VoiceOver, for instance, the problem could be in the way the browser implements the standards/guidelines or how VO interprets the information it gets from the browser's DOM. The reality of the situation is that a web accessibility problem is generally the fault of the author not following the WCAG but the browser and screen reader could be the culprit as they may not communicate appropriately with each other through the W3C DOM guidelines. RNIB did a "web crawl" study a few years ago that tested as many English language web sites as they could find on the Internet. Their results were that 90% of English language web sites contained "some to many" accessibility issues - in this kind of experiment, all of the faults are on behalf of the web developer and, in some of the cases, JAWS and Window-Eyes added some heuristics to make the pages somewhat usable that would not have been necessary had the developers followed the guidelines. cdh On Dec 10, 2009, at 12:36 PM, erik burggraaf wrote: > I can't whole hartedly agree with you on this one. Given the level of > functionality built in to voice over, it would be rediculous to expect > developers to try to compete. > > On top of that, there are other factors in accessibility besides a screen > reader. There is your own level of proficiency for one thing. Then there > are the limitations of your opperating system and the design of your software > application for others. Taking your web page links as an example, they may > not read in safari. But if you use the latest version of web kit then it > might deal with the design of the page differently and allow the links to > show. Similarly, if you view the page in firefox or opera it may render the > page totally differently and provide a higher level of access using the same > voiceover screen reader. Or the links may be designed completely without > labels and there may be nothing there for a screen reader to get a handle on, > in which case it would make no difference what browser and screen reader you > used. > > In the case of microsoft, they invented accessibility standards. Then they > berried the standards in a locked filing cabinet in a locked washroom down > in the basement with a keep out sign on the door. Few people, if any, paid > attention to the accessibility standards, even microsoft itself. It took > many years to make web browsing functional, even though there were standards > almost from the beginning. Windows screen reader manufacturers used to have > to re-invent the wheel for every new os or browser upgrade. Remember when > window-eyes 4.5 came out and it was accessible with adobe pdf? It could have > been that way from the beginning, but adobe didn't use any of the > accessibility standards and then had to rewrite huge chunks of their code. > > Apple on the other hand, is setting the accessibility standards for it's OS, > Providing the tools people need to take advantage of accessibility, and > herding the sheep onto the accessible towline. They aren't just writing a > screen reading package. They are writing an accessible OS and educating come > forcing developers into creating accessible software. It's taking time, but > you can see the results. Every safari update, every OS update, every update > for your third party software, all bring some new piece of the puzzle and > offer up something more we can use. It's got to be tough for a third party > screen reader developer to compete, and if you wait a month or two or three, > a browser update, website update, or OS update will suddendly render your > content useable where it wasn't before. Not only that, but the cost to you > will be minimal or none. Proof that not all monopolies are tiranical, or > that sometimes one person stepping up and taking charge is better than a > motly collection of competing factions clawing their way over every one else. > > Best, > erik burggraaf > A+ certified technician and user support consultant. > Phone: 888-255-5194 > Email: e...@erik-burggraaf.com > > On 2009-12-09, at 8:04 PM, carlene knight wrote: > >> Hi: >> >> Though I like Voiceover and the OSX format, I do wish there was a secondary >> program like NVDa as it can read some web pages that neither JAWS nor >> Voiceover can. One in particular is a lot of the link labels at >> www.eddietrunk.com. >> >> On Dec 9, 2009, at 4:38 PM, erik burggraaf wrote: >> >>> Hello, >>> >>> NVDA is a free open source screen reader. It is a competater of jaws or >>> window-eyes. It offers braille support, dll and sapi software synthesizer >>> support, msaa support, scripting capability, and very good to excellent >>> support for open source aplications like firefox, thunderbird, and open >>> office. It doesn't do all that well with microsoft applications, but it >>> will give you the basics. It can't simulate the mouse pointer the way jaws >>> and window-eyes can, but it does have a feature called object navigation >>> that will let you get to non tabbed objects in a limited way. It comes >>> with espeak synthesizer, which is fast and stable. It isn't anything like >>> human sounding speech though. If you care about it sounding like a person, >>> you're gonna hate it. I am a bit old though and I fondly remember my >>> accent sa. None of the modern natural sounding voices comes close to >>> soundind as good as that thing in my book. >>> >>> NVDA is not for high profile job aplications yet, but the development has >>> been steady and they've got a really viable product for common computer >>> tasks. Many of my clients could use it very happily and never miss jaws. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> erik burggraaf >>> A+ certified technician and user support consultant. >>> Phone: 888-255-5194 >>> Email: e...@erik-burggraaf.com >>> >>> On 2009-12-09, at 1:53 PM, Christina wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> So onto my questions. What is NVDA? I do not have a windows screen >>>> reader like jaws or window eyes so I'm curious as to what this is and >>>> how robust this is. >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >>> "MacVisionaries" group. >>> To post to this group, send email to macvisionar...@googlegroups.com. >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>> macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>> For more options, visit this group at >>> http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en. >>> >>> >> >> -- >> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "MacVisionaries" group. >> To post to this group, send email to macvisionar...@googlegroups.com. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en. >> >> > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "MacVisionaries" group. > To post to this group, send email to macvisionar...@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MacVisionaries" group. To post to this group, send email to macvisionar...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en.
