Phosphor [&]

@bazelgeuse-apologist

he/they

It's a horrible day on the Internet, and you are a lovely geuse.

Adult - Plants-liking queer menace - Front-desk worker of a plural system - Unapologetic low-effort poster

✨ Cohost's #1 Sunkern Fan(tm) ✨

--
Three pixel stamps: a breaking chain icon in trans colors against a red background, an image of someone being booted out reading "This user is UNWELCOME at the university", and a darkened lamppost. (fallen london stamps by @vagorsol)

System Website

feastingwithghosts.com/

RONKA SHRINE

feastingwithghosts.com/c/Phosphor/

Phosphor [&]@bazelgeuse-apologist4/11/2023, 8:20 PM

it's honestly kind of hecked that JAWS (the most popular screen reader) and its associated dev tools (for people trying to make accessible sites/software) cost so much money. like, either you sub for $90 a year or you pay over a THOUSAND BUCKS for a perpetual license? do they honestly think disabled folks of all people are rolling in cash?

am I missing some important context or is this just another example of the world being shitty to disabled folks?

(additional, slightly tangential question: right now I'm using Narrator (the default screen reader that comes bundled with Windows) to double-check my labels and keyboard navigation on this site I'm working on. I'm genuinely not sure if it's enough, though. I've heard that it kind of sucks next to JAWS and was debating picking up a license for dev purposes, but would that be overkill? I'm also aware that there's a lot of nuances to screen reader use that a sighted person might not pick up on, even with the same software...)

#The Cohost Global Feed #accessibility

You must log in to comment.

in reply to @bazelgeuse-apologist's post:

Mochi @himochi4/11/2023, 8:22 PM

It's fine! They can just save up all their benefits and- [benefits suspended due to having "too much money"] ah fuck

Phosphor [&]@bazelgeuse-apologist4/11/2023, 8:23 PM

INCOHERENT SCREAMING INTO A PILLOW

ela @eladnarra4/12/2023, 12:38 AM

I haven't found a way around JAWS being expensive, but since you're on Windows have you tried NVDA? It's free, and well worth testing when considering WebAIM survey results - it's basically second only to JAWS in usage.

Phosphor [&]@bazelgeuse-apologist4/12/2023, 5:11 PM

OKAY, let me actually reply to the comment that's addressed to me this time

which is: WHOA, THANK YOU! I'm gonna download this right away. :D Pleased to see that at least some folks are doing the good work for accessibility tools!

ela @eladnarra4/12/2023, 5:36 PM

You're welcome! :host-joy:

Æ et al. [&]@AE-et-al4/12/2023, 1:06 AM

It fucking sucks lol. My employer is a website and we, like many websites, have been sued for "ADA violations," but the feds/scotus have refused to clarify what makes a website/app/digital experience ADA-compliant. So every single screen reader in the world does things slightly different and everyone is kinda making up what meta tagging or menu-ing is the "right way" to do it and it doesn't help anyone except for the scummy lawyers that do these frivolous lawsuits.

I do what I can to ensure the stuff I make works but...man there's no way to win. Until we get ADA guidelines, we're going to have all these competing screenreaders at different levels of "good" and I'm sorry if this is somewhat of a rant it is something I feel really strongly about but most people just!!!! Don't understand!!!!

ela @eladnarra4/12/2023, 1:44 PM

What about WCAG? The ADA website states standards are flexible, but it still recommends WCAG (and Section 508) as viable.

Phosphor [&]@bazelgeuse-apologist4/12/2023, 5:09 PM

EDIT: OH WAIT, you're replying to someone other than me. Disregard!

Oh, thank you! This does give some clarity.

Still, even if I'm sure I'm following the guidelines, I'd still like to do a once-over with the actual software that people are using - just in case, y'know?

Æ et al. [&]@AE-et-al4/12/2023, 5:37 PM

The problem is that they're guidelines, not laws. A physical store has to have doorways so wide so wheelchairs and other movement-based devices can get around. And since that minimum number is consistent across states, wheelchair manufacturers know that making chairs that fit in that space will give people the maximum access.

But by having guidelines, and not laws, for websites, and no enforcement besides private, frivolous lawsuits, screen readers have to figure out a ton of different possible ways websites can be put together, which means some are better than others and that can justify the higher costs. But if there were standards we were all working on, then everything can be more equitable. Microsoft, Google, and Apple would be able to make really good screen readers for their operating systems and not force people with not a lot of money to spare to pay for something super expensive.

ela @eladnarra4/12/2023, 6:10 PM

and no enforcement besides private, frivolous lawsuits

All parts of the ADA are enforced by lawsuits. Sometimes the DOJ will sue (for both physical and website accessibility violations) when it affects lots of people, but often it falls on individuals to sue. A blind person wanting to use the Dominoes website (real example) isn't frivolous.

But if there were standards we were all working on, then everything can be more equitable. Microsoft, Google, and Apple would be able to make really good screen readers for their operating systems

Microsoft, Google, and Apple all make screen readers - Narrator isn't used much (people seem to prefer NVDA which is also free), but Talk Back and Voice Over are.

I realize your opinion is informed by being on the side of being sued, but this honestly is some really defeatist stuff to post in response to someone trying to do their best and test accessibility. It sucks that JAWS costs so much, but there are other options and a lack of legal stipulations isn't the issue - the fact that websites and their audiences are all so different is why flexibility is necessary, and why things like WCAG describe expected outcomes and do not prescribe how to get there (although recommendations exist).

Pinned Tags