I agree with Patrick, blind users use quick access methods like jumping through links and headings on the page that you'd need to know about.
Having the tools at hand is still useful as it allows you to get a basic grasp of how they work. You can also test small parts of a page to see how it works. The best method to see how your site works for blind users is to go and watch a blind user in action. In Sydney, the Royal Blind society has a service (Adaptive Technology Consultancy Service - 02 9334 3400) that allows you to book a time and sit with vision impaired and blind users - for a small fee. I'm sure most capital cities would do the same. You can be treat it as part of your general user testing - giving users tasks to perform and observing how they achieve the tasks (how quickly, easily, how many clicks, problems etc). Most blind users are only too happy to tell you where you can improve your methods. :) Russ > Hey Pat, > Thanks a lot for the advice, It's best then if I steer away from 'hands on' > testing of Assistive Technology and just follow the guidelines as is. > > Thanks again, that was a huge help. > > > Jamie Mason: Design > > -----Original Message----- > From: P.H.Lauke [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 26 May 2004 15:06 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [WSG] Impairment browsers (insert correct pc term here) > > Ok, the proper general term for this is "Assistive Technology" (AT for short). > > Text/braille browsers: Lynx and BrailleSurf > Screenreaders and speech browsers: Dolphin Supernova, JAWS, IBM HPR, > pwWebSpeak, WindowsEyes. > Most of these have demo versions you can download. Howerver, I would say that > - unless you actually know > what you're doing when using these browsers - it may do more harm than good to > test in these (especially > the screenreaders), as your testing will not reflect the way a regular user > would employ them. There are > many setting etc (e.g. verbosity settings) that are not ideal in the default. > Also, many people make the mistake > of listening to the entire output of the screenreader, whereas visually > impaired users will skip through a page at > high speed, then often backtrack and slow down as needed (similar to visually > skim-reading the page). > Without good command of the software, your testing will be inherently flawed. > > Patrick > ________________________________ > Patrick H. Lauke > Webmaster / University of Salford > http://www.salford.ac.uk <http://www.salford.ac.uk/> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Jamie Mason [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: 26 May 2004 11:16 >> To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' >> Subject: [WSG] Impairment browsers (insert correct pc term here) >> >> Hi, >> I recently downloaded standalone versions of old versions of the major >> browsers for testing (and am aware of the imperfections of these) but was >> curious after reading the post on 'Lynx'... >> >> Does anyone know the names (and ideally urls) to download speech, text >> browsers etc? I know nothing about these and would really love a chance to be >> able to test my work on these directly. Apologies for not knowing the correct >> pc term for categorising these. >> >> Thanks in advance, >> >> Jamie Mason: Design ***************************************************** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help *****************************************************
