I'm afraid I don't understand your answer. You're saying that the Windows screen readers handle browsers differently. That part I understand. But, I wasn't asking about that. This is correct. I do think I do understand that you have a preference for output that is rendered the same way as it would be without a screen reader. Well and good. That may, or may not, be a valuable thing, depending on personal choice, I expect. This is also a good point. But, haven't you configured your browser to provide you navigation in the rendered content? I'm unaware that sighted users would have such a requirement. I would rather expect they woudln't. There are plug-ins that provide just this type of functionality for internet explorer they are for sighted users that wish to use the keyboard for selecting text. Also a number of sighted people I have spoken with say that making the link stand out on a line on its own is helpful. I took a web design class a few years ago and was told to always put the link by it self on its own line and to draw attention to it. To make it catchy to the eye was the way he frazed it. He also said it was a good idea to write a simple web page with as few graphics as possible for though users who were still using dialup modems. He also said to avoid the naming of links like click here. He said it was a good idea to include the hole title of the link for example click here to return to the home page not click here To return to the home page with click here being the name of the link. And, that takes me back to my first question: Isn't reviewing content line by line, or word by word, or char by char, our requirement for assistive technology, and not the browser? Seems to me it belongs with AT, not browsers. What does it matter. Either way whether it is built in to the browser or the screen reader as long as you have the feature. Your point is basically is it is not the function of the program you are using but the function of the screen reader to provide a access technology feature. My point is that as long as the feature is provided it really does not matter who is doing the providing. Remember the more programmers who at `key are needs in to account the more accessible the said programs will be. Not sure if you were ever a dos user but there were a lot of programs that did things to try to help provide more access. Silver express mail reader had a speech friendly mode witch provided information to the bios witch was not written to the screen thus making messages more readable. In fact in this case it provided to much out put at some times. Telix had a hole section in its documentation on how to set it up to work well with screen readers. Como as we all remember had features like this as well. Bleu wave had a speech out put feature. Windows programs have continued this real player for windows has sections on how to make it work best with screen readers. The on line bible has a section on making it work and a speech friendly mode. Acrobat reader has speech built in that will read the document to you. Note lots of sighted people I know use this features. Your point would be that all this should be the function of the screen reader. But why. If programs that are main streem start putting these things in to the core of the code then that makes less work for the creators of the screen reader. I am sure kerk would appreciate that. My issue is when we have to use some program that is not off the shelf or main streem to get a job done. I have no objection when a programmer has done some thing to make it easier to access said program. My issue is also when a programmer ads features to make the program more accessible and in fact makes it harder to use. Lets take the silver express example. Silver express had a feature called the talking cursor. This was well and good. So you turn off the cursor for the screen reader and use the talking cursor. The problem was that the talking cursor did not work in the editor. So you had to enable your cursor again. If you are going to add a feature of this nature it needs to work across the board. Then you have people who write programs and tell you to turn off such and such feature to gain access to it. An example of this is goldwave for windows. They tell you to turn off the menu graphics if you do not your screen reader will not be able to read the menus. This is not true I have tried it with jaws window bridge and window eyes the menus read fine whether or not this feature is on or off. I get question on a regular basis for I wrote the gold wave scripts for jaws how do I turn off these menus so jaws will work with gold wave. The answer is of course not to bother. So if people want to help that is wonderful. But lets make sure the features they add really help. For example the lynx feature really would help but the gold wave document about turning off graphics in menus does not. Hth
