Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Most problems I've seen there stem from "but the outdated screenreaders everyone uses cannot parse this". So after of course doing what the original article recommends, you also need to think long and hard about what kinds of new markup or gasp javascript you want to allow. Because the average screenreader out there will beat IE6 in crappyness.

This is one of the reasons I still test in IE6 (as well as IE3, Lynx, Netscape 3, and Mosaic.)

It is hard to anticipate all the different ways a client (user agent) can interpret the page.

I did not know much about aria or modern Web accessibility techniques before I had someone using a screen-reader (one I had never heard of before) test the site.

I had already tested with so many other clients, kept it mostly text-based, and took care to use elements as they are intended.

The user was able to complete the tasks without issues.

Related, is there any consensus as to which are the best screen readers?

Jaws (for Windows) in the most popular and widely regarded as the best, though it can be a bit costly (like $200-$300 per year).

On windows, NVDA is also widely used and is free, but you will need to buy a good vocaliser/voice for it. Windows has a built-in Narrator, but the voice is not clearly audible at high speed, so people tend to move on.

On phones, iOS and Android both have built-in, capable screen readers, but they lack flexibility for internet usage.

On OSX, the built-in VoiceOver technology is apparently good, and widely used.

If you're wanting to test what the screen-reader experience might be like, you could do worse than trying the one built in to your operating system (Windows Narrator or iOS VoiceOver). Increase the voice speed for a better experience.

NVDA has surpassed JAWS as the most popular SR. https://webaim.org/projects/screenreadersurvey8/#primary

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact