From: Tiddy Ogg 
Newsgroups: uk.finance
Subject: Re: For Tim - DDA
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 14:00:29 +0000


On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 10:16:13 -0000, "Tim"  wrote:

>"Tiddy Ogg" wrote
>> Don't know if this has any relevance to
>> our recent discussion.  Have a quick look.
>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/01/25/computer_based_exam_discriminated_against_blind_candidate/
>
>Thanks for that, quite interesting - but I didn't notice
>any question that the 'screen reader' software (JAWS)
>may be incompatible with the other systems or that
>there may be a problem converting anything to speech.


As you've probably gathered by now, I don't know the legal niceties,
but here are a few more comments.
>
>It appeared you believe that it is NOT the responsibility
>of the 'browser' to convert plain text into speech -
>otherwise you would have talked about suing the 'browser'
>vendor (Microsoft!) under the DDA, rather than having
>gone out and bought a (rather expensive) 'screen reader'.
>It also appeared you believe that it is NOT the
>responsibility of the 'screen reader' to convert words
>embedded in graphics into speech - because you seemed to
>consider that the 'website' should change this instead.

If it were possible to convert such graphics this would force all
these sites requiring the copying of words in fuzzy pictures to
eliminate bots  to come up with other ideas, (which might not be a bad
idea.)>
> ...there'd be no need for 'screen readers'
>at all, because the 'website' and 'browser' would
>already have the facility to convert to speech / etc!]
>
That would of course be the ideal, and if Microsoft did this, which
I'm sure they could, and have deliberately emasculated their Narrator
software* to avoid more monopoly accusations.

Web site designers have published guidelines, and they should follow
them.

*If you've never used Narrator, and you have XP, simply push Windows
logo key and U together to start it up.

Tiddy Ogg.
http://www.tiddyogg.co.uk