Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > HTML > How to test for speech browsers

Reply
Thread Tools

How to test for speech browsers

 
 
jake
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-18-2004
In message <(E-Mail Removed)>, brucie
<****@usenetshit.info> writes
>in post: <news:(E-Mail Removed)>
>jake <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>
>> The 'alternative text on a 1-pixel .gif' approach always works;

>
>you'd better let firewalls/proxies/filters know that so they stop
>filtering them out as webbugs.


If you know this to be a fact, you might want to contact the suppliers
about this important software bug in their systems.

The fact(?) that these devices could drop a 40+ byte file (because that
what a 1-pixel .gif is) should be something they need to work on
urgently.

>
>> however you can also use a CSS approach (if you want to) to hide the
>> link from graphical browsers while making it available to asssistive
>> technology (AT) devices:

>
>that technique can also (and does) hide the link from assistive tech.


What AT UA have you tested this with and found it not to work in? Just
curious.

>


regards.

--
Jake
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
jake
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-18-2004
In message <(E-Mail Removed)>, Sally Thompson
<(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 08:00:00 +1000, brucie <****@usenetshit.info>
>wrote:
>
>>in post: <news:(E-Mail Removed)>
>>Sally Thompson <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>>
>>> I've been experiment with putting a "skip navigation" link on my
>>> website (only on the home page at present).

>>
>>you don't need to reinvent the wheel. assistive tech already has various
>>ways for people to jump around pages. some people consider skip links
>>condescending.

>
>Food for thought there. I didn't know that.
>

[snip]

Just take a look at any UK government site and see what they do. (Hint:
very similar to what you're doing -- including using a 1-pixel .gif link
in many cases

regards.
--
Jake
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
brucie
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-18-2004
in post: <news:(E-Mail Removed)>
jake <(E-Mail Removed)> said:

>>you'd better let firewalls/proxies/filters know that so they stop
>>filtering them out as webbugs.


> If you know this to be a fact, you might want to contact the suppliers
> about this important software bug in their systems.


filtering out webbugs is not a bug

> The fact(?)


yes fact, zonealarm is one example.

> that these devices could drop a 40+ byte file (because that
> what a 1-pixel .gif is) should be something they need to work on
> urgently.


its an excellent feature. you just don't like it because it upsets your
preconceived notions.

>>that technique can also (and does) hide the link from assistive tech.


> What AT UA have you tested this with and found it not to work in? Just
> curious.


HPR, outloud and jaws depending on version. 5+ is ok but previous
version screwed up and remember people who need the tech are more likely
to be on low incomes (e.g. pensions) so upgrading is an issue.


--
b r u c i e


 
Reply With Quote
 
jake
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-18-2004
In message <1c6lyyil2dse1$(E-Mail Removed)>, brucie
<****@usenetshit.info> writes
>in post: <news:(E-Mail Removed)>
>Sally Thompson <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>
>>>you don't need to reinvent the wheel. assistive tech already has various
>>>ways for people to jump around pages. some people consider skip links
>>>condescending.

>
>> Food for thought there. I didn't know that.

>
>semantically markup your pages and be careful of link and alt text and
>you're 99% there. skip links are just a gimmick to make you feel all
>warm and fuzzy helping out the poor disabled people. gowd knows how they
>managed before skip links became trendy.
>

I am at a loss to understand this "let's make it harder for the
visually-impaired, learning-impaired folk, etc. to get around" attitude.

Can they get around menus in other ways? Yes, sure.

As easily? No.

To quote the RNIB : ".... Hidden navigation can make a site a lot easier
to navigate for people using screen readers ...."


regards.

--
Jake
 
Reply With Quote
 
jake
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-18-2004
In message <(E-Mail Removed)>, Sally Thompson
<(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 20:19:52 +0100, jake <(E-Mail Removed)>
>wrote:
>
>>In message <(E-Mail Removed)>, Sally Thompson
>><(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>>>
>>>I've been experiment with putting a "skip navigation" link on my
>>>website (only on the home page at present). I'd be very glad if
>>>someone could tell me if it works (URL in sig).

>>
>>Yes, it would work if "content" had been specified somewhere.
>>i.e <....... id="content" ........>
>>
>>See http://www.gododdin.demon.co.uk/ng/ST1X.JPG (95k)

>
>Thanks Jake (and to David who made the same point). So if I add
>id="content" to my <div class="content"> to read <div class="content"
>id="content">, will that do it, or I have missed the plot somewhere?


I've just tested your page. Works fine.


[snip]

regards.
--
Jake
 
Reply With Quote
 
brucie
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-18-2004
in post: <news:(E-Mail Removed)>
jake <(E-Mail Removed)> said:

>>semantically markup your pages and be careful of link and alt text and
>>you're 99% there. skip links are just a gimmick to make you feel all
>>warm and fuzzy helping out the poor disabled people. gowd knows how they
>>managed before skip links became trendy.


> I am at a loss to understand this "let's make it harder for the
> visually-impaired, learning-impaired folk, etc. to get around" attitude.


stop assuming people with visual problem are stupid, believe it or not
they don't need their hand held to get around a page and have been doing
it for the last 10 years without any help from anyone.

> Can they get around menus in other ways? Yes, sure.
> As easily? No.


yes and much easier. for example jumping from <hx> to <hx> or <p> to <p>
or <a> or <ul> or <li> etc etc etc and the visitor will continue to know
where they are on the page whereas a skip link could take them anywhere
on the page and get them lost.

assuming the visitor is completely blind which is unlikely. few people
are.

> To quote the RNIB : ".... Hidden navigation can make a site a lot easier
> to navigate for people using screen readers ...."


there are various guidelines that hinder accessibility, not improve it.
while skip links are easily ignored so don't actually hinder
accessibility they are over engineering to fix a problem that doesn't
exists.

designing a site to comply with accessibility legislation and designing
a site to be accessible will result in two different sites.

--
b r u c i e


 
Reply With Quote
 
jake
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-18-2004
In message <(E-Mail Removed)>, brucie
<****@usenetshit.info> writes
>in post: <news:(E-Mail Removed)>
>jake <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>
>>>you'd better let firewalls/proxies/filters know that so they stop
>>>filtering them out as webbugs.

>
>> If you know this to be a fact, you might want to contact the suppliers
>> about this important software bug in their systems.

>
>filtering out webbugs is not a bug


filtering out a valid file-type would be.
>
>> The fact(?)

>
>yes fact, zonealarm is one example.
>
>> that these devices could drop a 40+ byte file (because that
>> what a 1-pixel .gif is) should be something they need to work on
>> urgently.

>
>its an excellent feature. you just don't like it because it upsets your
>preconceived notions.


If true, it's a bug.

Seems like the UK government is not aware of this (nor the National
Institute for the Blind). Should they be informed? (along with the local
authorities and universities and ........)

If this was a real problem, it would have been recognised and dealt with
a long time ago.

>
>>>that technique can also (and does) hide the link from assistive tech.

>
>> What AT UA have you tested this with and found it not to work in? Just
>> curious.

>
>HPR, outloud and jaws depending on version. 5+ is ok but previous
>version screwed up and remember people who need the tech are more likely
>to be on low incomes (e.g. pensions) so upgrading is an issue.
>

Works just fine in my version of HPR.
>

Still, you have a point - but I guess that's akin to the on-going saga
of sighted users viewing pages using older browsers with buggy CSS
support.

(Of course, if it's invisible to older readers, then they simply won't
be aware that it exists and so will carry on in the way they have always
carried on)

What's your suggestion for getting 'invisible' assistive text into a Web
page?

I guess we're coming back to the 1-pixel .gif approach .......... the
'Swiss Army Knife' for accessible pages

regards.
--
Jake
 
Reply With Quote
 
jake
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-18-2004
In message <q9wgzo4q0okx$(E-Mail Removed)>, brucie
<****@usenetshit.info> writes
>in post: <news:(E-Mail Removed)>
>jake <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>
>>>semantically markup your pages and be careful of link and alt text and
>>>you're 99% there. skip links are just a gimmick to make you feel all
>>>warm and fuzzy helping out the poor disabled people. gowd knows how they
>>>managed before skip links became trendy.

>
>> I am at a loss to understand this "let's make it harder for the
>> visually-impaired, learning-impaired folk, etc. to get around" attitude.

>
>stop assuming people with visual problem are stupid, believe it or not
>they don't need their hand held to get around a page and have been doing
>it for the last 10 years without any help from anyone.


Ah, the old "stop assuming people with visual problems are stupid"
response. Now how many times have I seen that one in lieu of a valid
argument?

I'm afraid that studies by the great and the good in this world show
just the opposite. Why do you think it's a recommended approach by
national blind institutions, an approach used by governments, etc. --
because they woke up one morning and thought to themselves "this is a
good idea"? I don't think so.

>
>> Can they get around menus in other ways? Yes, sure.
>> As easily? No.

>
>yes and much easier. for example jumping from <hx> to <hx> or <p> to <p>
>or <a> or <ul> or <li> etc etc etc and the visitor will continue to know
>where they are on the page whereas a skip link could take them anywhere
>on the page and get them lost.
>
>assuming the visitor is completely blind which is unlikely. few people
>are.


Why put them through hoops?

On entering a page with suitable assistive text the first thing they
hear (in a links voice) is 'bypass navigation', 'go to main content', or
whatever. They hit *one* button and the reader immediately starts
reading from the 'main content'. Yes, *one button* (with a suitable AT
UA)

What's easier that that?

>
>> To quote the RNIB : ".... Hidden navigation can make a site a lot easier
>> to navigate for people using screen readers ...."

>
>there are various guidelines that hinder accessibility, not improve it.


For example?

>while skip links are easily ignored so don't actually hinder
>accessibility they are over engineering to fix a problem that doesn't
>exists.
>
>designing a site to comply with accessibility legislation and designing
>a site to be accessible will result in two different sites.
>

Sorry, but I just can't follow your reasoning.

Anyway, we're obviously not going to agree on this.

regards.


--
Jake
 
Reply With Quote
 
brucie
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-18-2004
in post: <news:(E-Mail Removed)>
jake <(E-Mail Removed)> said:

> Ah, the old "stop assuming people with visual problems are stupid"
> response. Now how many times have I seen that one in lieu of a valid
> argument?


its a very valid argument, you see it all the time especially in
conjunction with people talking louder to VI people.

> Anyway, we're obviously not going to agree on this.


no we're not.

--
b r u c i e


 
Reply With Quote
 
Sally Thompson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-18-2004
On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 11:06:30 +0100, jake <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>In message <(E-Mail Removed)>, Sally Thompson
><(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>>On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 20:19:52 +0100, jake <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In message <(E-Mail Removed)>, Sally Thompson
>>><(E-Mail Removed)> writes


<snip>
>>Thanks Jake (and to David who made the same point). So if I add
>>id="content" to my <div class="content"> to read <div class="content"
>>id="content">, will that do it, or I have missed the plot somewhere?

>
>I've just tested your page. Works fine.


Thanks very much Jake - good to know. Phew!

--
Sally in Shropshire, UK
bed and breakfast near Ludlow: http://www.stonybrook-ludlow.co.uk
Reply To address is spam trap
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Browsers, browsers! Quo vadis? El Kabong HTML 23 05-13-2007 08:55 PM
Two Browsers work! Two browsers won't load. Internet game service won't load jimmie Computer Support 1 02-26-2006 08:36 AM
Text-to-speech test Bianca VOIP 0 01-16-2004 11:51 AM
TEST TEST TEST Gazwad Computer Support 2 09-05-2003 07:32 PM
test test test test test test test Computer Support 2 07-02-2003 06:02 PM



Advertisments