Comments on: Web Accessibility Worries? Give Your Development Effort Fangs. http://www.adammessinger.com/2005/04/09/fangs Thu, 20 Nov 2008 16:54:04 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.2 by: Adam Messinger http://www.adammessinger.com/2005/04/09/fangs#comment-6979 Wed, 29 Jun 2005 18:13:03 +0000 http://www.adammessinger.com/2005/04/09/fangs#comment-6979 Great tip, Neider. Thanks! :-D Great tip, Neider. Thanks! :-D

]]> by: Neider http://www.adammessinger.com/2005/04/09/fangs#comment-6978 Wed, 29 Jun 2005 15:37:11 +0000 http://www.adammessinger.com/2005/04/09/fangs#comment-6978 Well, I use Fire Vox (<a href="http://clc-4-tts.cjb.net" rel="nofollow">http://clc-4-tts.cjb.net</a>) to test for accessibility myself. I prefer that because it is an actual screen reader and some things that may look ok in Fangs may turn out to not be ok when read out loud by a computer. For example, abbreviations can be a problem if they can't be understood properly because the text to speech engine's phonetic rules mangled the pronounciation. From what I can tell, Fire Vox seems to follow JAWS/Fangs behavior pretty closely in terms of how it announces the various HTML objects on the page. Fire Vox is freeware and open source, so I don't have to spend a fortune on a commercial screen reader. Well, I use Fire Vox (http://clc-4-tts.cjb.net) to test for accessibility myself. I prefer that because it is an actual screen reader and some things that may look ok in Fangs may turn out to not be ok when read out loud by a computer. For example, abbreviations can be a problem if they can’t be understood properly because the text to speech engine’s phonetic rules mangled the pronounciation.

From what I can tell, Fire Vox seems to follow JAWS/Fangs behavior pretty closely in terms of how it announces the various HTML objects on the page. Fire Vox is freeware and open source, so I don’t have to spend a fortune on a commercial screen reader.

]]> by: Andy Beeching http://www.adammessinger.com/2005/04/09/fangs#comment-4694 Sun, 10 Apr 2005 21:56:08 +0000 http://www.adammessinger.com/2005/04/09/fangs#comment-4694 I agree, I think it's like 8 out of the 14 points for version one actually have to be manually verified, and bobby has been known to have some flaws. I think a lot of it is interpretive as well. As long as the devloper performs a decent usability testing with disabled people, and makes reasonable allocation for their needs, most companies will be quite safe from any potential legal cases. And yes, I reckon you Americans get off pretty lightly with the 508! I agree, I think it’s like 8 out of the 14 points for version one actually have to be manually verified, and bobby has been known to have some flaws. I think a lot of it is interpretive as well. As long as the devloper performs a decent usability testing with disabled people, and makes reasonable allocation for their needs, most companies will be quite safe from any potential legal cases. And yes, I reckon you Americans get off pretty lightly with the 508!

]]> by: Adam Messinger http://www.adammessinger.com/2005/04/09/fangs#comment-4693 Sun, 10 Apr 2005 21:14:00 +0000 http://www.adammessinger.com/2005/04/09/fangs#comment-4693 Glad it was helpful. :) As I'm sure you know, a site that comes across well in Fangs isn't necessarily <a href="http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG1AAA-Conformance" title="The W3C's definition of AAA compliance" rel="nofollow">AAA compliant</a>. Even testing as such in an accessibility validator like <a href="http://bobby.watchfire.com/bobby/html/en/index.jsp" title="The Bobby accessibility validator" rel="nofollow">Bobby</a> (which is probably the best) is no guarantee. The <acronym title="Web Accessibility Initiative">WAI</acronym> <acronym title="Web Content Accessibility Guidelines">WCAG</acronym> 1.0 <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/WAI-WEBCONTENT-19990505/" title="A link to the WAI WCAG 1.0 specification" rel="nofollow">spec</a> is vague in some places and defies machine testing in others. Since it sets an extremely high bar for accessibility, this can be frustrating. I have high hopes that <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/" title="Link to the WAI WCAG Guidelines 2.0 working draft" rel="nofollow">version 2.0</a> will be more developer-friendly. Frankly I'm glad that here in the US we only have to worry about <a href="http://section508.gov/" title="Visit the US government's Section 508 web site for more information" rel="nofollow">Section 508</a>. It's simpler and more concrete than WCAG 1.0, if not necessarily as complete. If I ever develop a site for an organization receiving federal funding, it will be a much easier target to reach. Glad it was helpful. :)

As I’m sure you know, a site that comes across well in Fangs isn’t necessarily AAA compliant. Even testing as such in an accessibility validator like Bobby (which is probably the best) is no guarantee.

The WAI WCAG 1.0 spec is vague in some places and defies machine testing in others. Since it sets an extremely high bar for accessibility, this can be frustrating. I have high hopes that version 2.0 will be more developer-friendly.

Frankly I’m glad that here in the US we only have to worry about Section 508. It’s simpler and more concrete than WCAG 1.0, if not necessarily as complete. If I ever develop a site for an organization receiving federal funding, it will be a much easier target to reach.

]]> by: Andy Beeching http://www.adammessinger.com/2005/04/09/fangs#comment-4692 Sun, 10 Apr 2005 14:59:08 +0000 http://www.adammessinger.com/2005/04/09/fangs#comment-4692 Thanks for the eads-up Adam, these look fantastic! Perfect for testing all my sites which by law have to AAA compliant! :) Thanks for the eads-up Adam, these look fantastic! Perfect for testing all my sites which by law have to AAA compliant! :)

]]>