The Screenreader Experience Part One: What Twitter.com Sounds Like
napcsweb.com
napcsweb.com
That'd make it infinitely easier for web developers to test pages...
JAWS for Windows gives you a 45 minute trial. All you need to do to restart the trial is to reboot your machine.
But like I said in the article - it's not gonna be a checklist that gets the job done, it's gonna be about testing it in real screenreaders. I haven't seen any emulators that behave like the real ones.
Or I could say "Find 10 pages, and quickly determine, from only the HTML markup, what the main content is." and then do that for the top 1000 pages on the net. See how hard the problem is. If you solve it, you'd be a hero.
On the other hand, you could use accessibility patterns like UJS, alternative text, skip links, ARIA roles, better semantic markup, and make your site about 80% more usable in about an hour :)
I agree, but sadly it remains easier to solve even hard technical challenges than seemingly easy social ones where, if you're lucky, perhaps 20% of developers will cooperate.
As a developer I find accessibility interesting, which is why I submitted it, but unless I'm being forced to implement it by law or context (e.g. a site with a high demographic of people using screen readers) I haven't the inclination or motivation to focus on it (though skip links, alternative text, etc, are good ideas anyway). It's a bit like dealing with IE5 or WebTV in that regard.
There are lots of ways in which we could make the world better for disabled people, I'm sure, but typically we've built technology to make life easier for them instead of changing the way the world already operates (with the notable exception of building codes enforcing the installation of ramps and disabled access systems). I'm not saying that's always a good thing but people are notoriously slow to change en masse (y'seen the average quality of HTML out there?).
It shouldn't be too far fetched to significantly improve the usability of screen readers even on the hairiest of pages - most regular browsers do a stellar job at interpreting horrendous markup. Half of the stuff that your recording comes out with isn't even visible on the screen.. do screen readers pay full attention to CSS and states enforced and controlled by JavaScript? If not, that's probably step one to making things better.
I suspect the problem is that there's little money, fame, and too few people looking at the technological aspects of this problem, whereas inventing a new "standard" and sitting on some W3 fancy board looks great on the old résumé.
Edit: http://www.webtospeech.com is free btw.
HTML / browsers are entirely capable of handling websites easily for blind people / other needs. The problem is that nobody builds their pages to use the tools already in existence - even really high profile pages are generally atrocious.
Similarly, take a peek around the web (or at most applications) and consider if you couldn't tell the difference between red/green or yellow/blue. Most people just don't consider it if it isn't shown to be a problem, and yes, it does take more time to develop for those edge cases.
Can I ask what OS you're working with?
The full video is at http://napcsweb.com/files/video/01_screenreader/01_screenrea... or http://napcsweb.com/files/video/01_screenreader/01_screenrea... if you want to watch it.
(edit: It worked for me even before the vimeo switch)
I hope I didn't make a mistake by pointing at Twitter.