How to test for speech browsers

[Sally Thompson]

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).

Secondly, is there a free talking browser I could download to test my
pages? Or one which simulates text to speech?

Thanks in advance for any advice.

 

[David Dorward]

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).

It doesn't. You haven't got an id="content" anywhere.

Secondly, is there a free talking browser I could download to test my
pages? Or one which simulates text to speech?

Well... there is Emacspeak - I've never managed to get it working though.

JAWS has a 30 demo available, and I assume IBM Homepage Reader does too.

Lynx is usually enough of a test for most authors, and that is free.

 

[jake]

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)

Secondly, is there a free talking browser I could download to test my
pages? Or one which simulates text to speech?

There's a 30-day free trial of IBM's HPR:
http://www-306.ibm.com/able/solution_offerings/hpr.html

Thanks in advance for any advice.

The 'alternative text on a 1-pixel .gif' approach always works; 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:

e.g

..hideit {
height : 0;
width : 0;
overflow : hidden;
position : absolute;
}



regards.

 

[Sally Thompson]

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 still have the L plates on.) Also, I looked at the link you gave,
and I just wondered why the phrase "non-smoking" was highlighted?

..

The 'alternative text on a 1-pixel .gif' approach always works; 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:

e.g

.hideit {
height : 0;
width : 0;
overflow : hidden;
position : absolute;
}

<a href="#content"><span class="hideit">Jump to main content</span></a>

I'll experiment with this. Thanks again to both of you.

 

[brucie]

in post: <

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.

Secondly, is there a free talking browser I could download to test my
pages?

if the below aren't free then they usually have a demo available.
haven't checked the links for a while:

sensus: http://www.sensus.dk/sib10uk.htm
ReadPlease http://www.readplease.com/
simply web 2000: http://www.econointl.com/sw/
pwwebspeak: http://www.soundlinks.com/pwgen.htm
web talkster: http://www.code-it.com/web_talkster.htm
multiweb: http://www.deakin.edu.au/infosys/multiweb/mwIndex.htm
outspoken (mac): http://www.aagi.com/downloads/download_demo.asp?25
outloud: http://www.freedomscientific.com/fs_products/software_connect.asp
ibm home page reader: http://www-3.ibm.com/able/solution_offerings/hpr.html
HPR download: ftp://ftp.software.ibm.com/sns/hpr/hpr3021trial_enu.exe
windows eyes: http://www.gwmicro.com/products/
super nova: http://www.dolphinuk.co.uk/products/supernova.htm
hal: http://www.dolphinuk.co.uk/products/hal.htm

 

[brucie]

in post: <

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.

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.

 

[Leif K-Brooks]

The 'alternative text on a 1-pixel .gif' approach always works

What about Lynx users, people with image loading turned off, and people
viewing your page offline without your images downloaded?

 

[Sally Thompson]

in post: <

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.

if the below aren't free then they usually have a demo available.
haven't checked the links for a while:

<snip list>
Thanks Brucie - that's great.

 

[brucie]

in post: <

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.

 

[jake]

What about Lynx users, people with image loading turned off, and people
viewing your page offline without your images downloaded?

You might want to re-read the context of this thread (hint:
'accessibility').

Putting alternative text on a 1-pixel .gif has been used since time
immemorial for providing a method of supplying 'assisting' text that AT
UAs can output (e.g. through a speech synthesizer) but that remains
invisible to graphical browsers.

A number of sites will make the 'skip to content', 'skip navigation' or
whatever text visible on the page -- but a lot of designers don't like
their pages being cluttered with such things ;-)

regards.

ps. If I've misunderstood your comment, please let me know.

 

[jake]

in post: <

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.

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]

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.

 

[brucie]

in post: <

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.

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.

 

[jake]

in post: <


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]

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.

 

[brucie]

in post: <

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.

 

[jake]

in post: <


filtering out webbugs is not a bug

filtering out a valid file-type would be.

yes fact, zonealarm is one example.


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.

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]

in post: <


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.

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?

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.

 

[brucie]

in post: <

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.

 

[Sally Thompson]

I've just tested your page. Works fine.

Thanks very much Jake - good to know. Phew!