Whether or not FireVox is a valid tool for testing really depends on the content. If you've got a static site that's got all the appropriate semantic structure, then it's going to behave much like JAWS or any other screen reader. However, as you start to add complexity, the differences between the products become more significant. Of course it's these more complex sites that you'll want to be testing.
The sort of things I mean would include DOM scripting, CSS overlays, AJAX, forms, accessible Flash, data tables etc. The behaviour with JAWS can vary significantly from version to version, so we always specify which version has been used for testing. If you're testing with FireVox, you won't be able to equate it to any particular JAWS version. I suppose that if you can make sense of the content using FireVox, then in all probability it won't be any worse with JAWS. The problem is when your site does not work well with FireVox - what do you do then? Do you spend time making changes that might not actually be necessary for JAWS users? Do you ignore the results and hope it's going to be ok? Of course if the developer does not have a good understanding of how screen reader users 'visualise' web pages, how they navigate through different types of content and how they are likely to interpret what they hear, then there's not much point testing with any kind of screen reader except to verify that the content is actually read out. Steve -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jixor - Stephen I Sent: 06 December 2007 00:50 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [WSG] Article: "Vocalize Firefox" (text-to-speech extensions for Firefox) That said how would it compare for a developer that is making an effort to correctly mark up their html just to get an impression of how it would work for a screen reader user? Steve Green wrote: > A year ago I started to evaluate FireVox 2.6 and had a dialog with > Charles Chen, its creator. At that time there is no way I would > describe it as "full-fledged screen reader" as it had many > shortcomings. I got the impression it was really just a hobby project, > and Charles said he had pretty much abandoned it in order to work on > more interesting stuff. I see it is now up to version 3.4 so it will > be interesting to see how it has progressed. > > It was certainly usable, but it bears no comparison with a > professional screen reader like JAWS, which is a far superior product. > OK, it should be for $1500 but people should not think that they're > getting a $1500 product for free when they install FireVox. It's more > akin to products in the $200 price bracket. > > One example of the difference is in forms where <label> elements have > not been used, and let's face it, that's 99% of all forms. JAWS > applies heuristics to identify the text that is most likely to be the > label, and associates it with the form control as if a <label> element > had been used. 9 times out of 10 it gets it right. FireVox does not do this. > > Steve > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Behalf Of Nick Lo > Sent: 05 December 2007 04:25 > To: [email protected] > Subject: [WSG] Article: "Vocalize Firefox" (text-to-speech extensions > for > Firefox) > > I'm wondering if anyone has tried/tested the following potentially > useful extensions and if so what their opinion was/is: > > "Two recently released text-to-speech extensions can transform Firefox > into a talking Web browser suitable for users with visual impairments > -- and anyone else who can use a speech interface to the Web. Fire Vox > is designed to be a full-fledged "screen reader in a browser," usable > for daily browsing even for unsighted users. CLiCk, Speak provides > point-and-click screen reading, which can be helpful for > partially-sighted users or sighted users who have written language difficulties (such as dyslexia)." > > http://www.linux.com/feature/122197 > > Nick > > > ******************************************************************* > List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm > Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm > Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ******************************************************************* > > > > ******************************************************************* > List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm > Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm > Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ******************************************************************* > > > > > ******************************************************************* > List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm > Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm > Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ******************************************************************* > > > ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ******************************************************************* ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *******************************************************************
