<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: JavaScript and Screen Readers</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2007/04/30/javascript-and-screen-readers/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2007/04/30/javascript-and-screen-readers/</link>
	<description>News, opinion, and fresh thinking for web developers and designers. The official podcast of sitepoint.com.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Nov 2009 05:23:27 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Notsofast</title>
		<link>http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2007/04/30/javascript-and-screen-readers/comment-page-1/#comment-875861</link>
		<dc:creator>Notsofast</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Feb 2009 04:24:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/?p=1910#comment-875861</guid>
		<description>Following Lovemore Nalube&#039;s suggestion, I read the results of Bob Easton&#039;s survey, and I come to the &lt;strong&gt;opposite&lt;/strong&gt; conclusion: Many browser/reader combinations fail to read text styled as &lt;code&gt;display:none&lt;/code&gt;, regardless of whether the style is inline, in an embedded stylesheet, or in an imported stylesheet. The results are outdated, though. The latest version of IE tested was 6. (It&#039;s interesting that IE 4 &lt;em&gt;would&lt;/em&gt; read anything styled as &lt;code&gt;display:none&lt;/code&gt;, but IE 5 and 6 &lt;em&gt;would not.&lt;/em&gt;)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Following Lovemore Nalube&#8217;s suggestion, I read the results of Bob Easton&#8217;s survey, and I come to the <strong>opposite</strong> conclusion: Many browser/reader combinations fail to read text styled as <code>display:none</code>, regardless of whether the style is inline, in an embedded stylesheet, or in an imported stylesheet. The results are outdated, though. The latest version of IE tested was 6. (It&#8217;s interesting that IE 4 <em>would</em> read anything styled as <code>display:none</code>, but IE 5 and 6 <em>would not.</em>)</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Lovemore Nalube</title>
		<link>http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2007/04/30/javascript-and-screen-readers/comment-page-1/#comment-797312</link>
		<dc:creator>Lovemore Nalube</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Sep 2008 14:02:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/?p=1910#comment-797312</guid>
		<description>Fellow programmers 

Using &lt;code&gt;display: none&lt;/code&gt; DOES NOT hide the text/element from being read by screen readers! Actually, so far there doesn&#039;t seem to be a sure way of hiding html text content from screen readers.

A survey has been done (available on Bob Easton&#039;s [&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.access-matters.com/screen-reader-test-results/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Access Matters blog&lt;/a&gt;].) to evaluate the ability to hide elements from screen readers. It seems to be difficult things to accomplish (so far).

Have a look at the survey!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Fellow programmers </p>
<p>Using <code>display: none</code> DOES NOT hide the text/element from being read by screen readers! Actually, so far there doesn&#8217;t seem to be a sure way of hiding html text content from screen readers.</p>
<p>A survey has been done (available on Bob Easton&#8217;s [<a href="http://www.access-matters.com/screen-reader-test-results/" rel="nofollow">Access Matters blog</a>].) to evaluate the ability to hide elements from screen readers. It seems to be difficult things to accomplish (so far).</p>
<p>Have a look at the survey!</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Yuccaplant</title>
		<link>http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2007/04/30/javascript-and-screen-readers/comment-page-1/#comment-254508</link>
		<dc:creator>Yuccaplant</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 May 2007 09:18:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/?p=1910#comment-254508</guid>
		<description>I found this article somewhat confusing. I thought screenreaders refreshed the virtual buffer when there is an &quot;onclick&quot; event, at least the more modern screenreaders. 

I attended an accessibilty course, with the teacher being blind. He stated that&#039;s not good practice to let feed blind users the full text, while visioned users could faster select the portions thay want read. All there is to do, is to put focus to the content that was made visible by javascript.

I think this is&lt;a href=&quot;http://juicystudio.com/article/making-ajax-work-with-screen-readers.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;an interesting article:&lt;/a&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I found this article somewhat confusing. I thought screenreaders refreshed the virtual buffer when there is an &#8220;onclick&#8221; event, at least the more modern screenreaders. </p>
<p>I attended an accessibilty course, with the teacher being blind. He stated that&#8217;s not good practice to let feed blind users the full text, while visioned users could faster select the portions thay want read. All there is to do, is to put focus to the content that was made visible by javascript.</p>
<p>I think this is<a href="http://juicystudio.com/article/making-ajax-work-with-screen-readers.php" rel="nofollow">an interesting article:</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: polvero</title>
		<link>http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2007/04/30/javascript-and-screen-readers/comment-page-1/#comment-254364</link>
		<dc:creator>polvero</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 May 2007 06:15:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/?p=1910#comment-254364</guid>
		<description>You know, Gmail comes in an alternate version that works with screen readers. So I doubt screen reader users are unlikely to use the Ajax version.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You know, Gmail comes in an alternate version that works with screen readers. So I doubt screen reader users are unlikely to use the Ajax version.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: brothercake</title>
		<link>http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2007/04/30/javascript-and-screen-readers/comment-page-1/#comment-242591</link>
		<dc:creator>brothercake</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 May 2007 02:52:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/?p=1910#comment-242591</guid>
		<description>If Google penalizes users for doing this, then Google is broken - period.

The height:0;overflow:hidden; solution unfortunately recreates the same problem - Window Eyes cannot read content which is completely hidden with overflow (although content which is only partially hidden is fine)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If Google penalizes users for doing this, then Google is broken &#8211; period.</p>
<p>The height:0;overflow:hidden; solution unfortunately recreates the same problem &#8211; Window Eyes cannot read content which is completely hidden with overflow (although content which is only partially hidden is fine)</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: NMB</title>
		<link>http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2007/04/30/javascript-and-screen-readers/comment-page-1/#comment-240425</link>
		<dc:creator>NMB</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 May 2007 19:24:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/?p=1910#comment-240425</guid>
		<description>This is just me, but I think I like Chest&#039;s example of  height:0/overflow:hidden better than -9999px. There was a time when Google penalized sites for moving content outside the viewport. People were doing this to hide non-relevant content from human users in an attempt to trick the search engines.

I can also see the potential for some strange visuals on slower computers as the browser moves these elements in and out of the viewport.

Good stuff Kevin... I&#039;ve always enjoyed your practical approach.

PS: I would also expect anyone reading this article (or even this website) to either know what a screen reader is or take some initiative and look it up. It would seem to be less work to enter 2 words into Google, than to post a question and wait for a response. Yes, Kevin probably should have addressed that, but still...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is just me, but I think I like Chest&#8217;s example of  height:0/overflow:hidden better than -9999px. There was a time when Google penalized sites for moving content outside the viewport. People were doing this to hide non-relevant content from human users in an attempt to trick the search engines.</p>
<p>I can also see the potential for some strange visuals on slower computers as the browser moves these elements in and out of the viewport.</p>
<p>Good stuff Kevin&#8230; I&#8217;ve always enjoyed your practical approach.</p>
<p>PS: I would also expect anyone reading this article (or even this website) to either know what a screen reader is or take some initiative and look it up. It would seem to be less work to enter 2 words into Google, than to post a question and wait for a response. Yes, Kevin probably should have addressed that, but still&#8230;</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ran</title>
		<link>http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2007/04/30/javascript-and-screen-readers/comment-page-1/#comment-238164</link>
		<dc:creator>Ran</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 May 2007 17:39:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/?p=1910#comment-238164</guid>
		<description>Look into the built-in support for screen readers available in Bindows (www.bindows.net) - a commercial Ajax development platform.
Their site includes demos and (tests with screen readers) of Ajax applications (that look and feel just like Windows) and are fully accessible to visually impaired (http://www.bindows.net/508/).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Look into the built-in support for screen readers available in Bindows (www.bindows.net) &#8211; a commercial Ajax development platform.<br />
Their site includes demos and (tests with screen readers) of Ajax applications (that look and feel just like Windows) and are fully accessible to visually impaired (<a href="http://www.bindows.net/508/)" rel="nofollow">http://www.bindows.net/508/)</a>.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Matt_Machell</title>
		<link>http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2007/04/30/javascript-and-screen-readers/comment-page-1/#comment-237071</link>
		<dc:creator>Matt_Machell</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Apr 2007 09:50:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/?p=1910#comment-237071</guid>
		<description>Chest,

I agree, screenreader users want to be included.

Part of the problem is the phrasing though, too often the wording makes users feel like they&#039;re being short changed. Rather than making it a negative &quot;turn X off&quot; phrasing, it&#039;s better surely to phrase as a positive &quot;turn on enhanced screenreader support&quot;. Because if you&#039;re doing things well, the options are still there, just in an easier to use form for those using AT.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Chest,</p>
<p>I agree, screenreader users want to be included.</p>
<p>Part of the problem is the phrasing though, too often the wording makes users feel like they&#8217;re being short changed. Rather than making it a negative &#8220;turn X off&#8221; phrasing, it&#8217;s better surely to phrase as a positive &#8220;turn on enhanced screenreader support&#8221;. Because if you&#8217;re doing things well, the options are still there, just in an easier to use form for those using AT.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: momos</title>
		<link>http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2007/04/30/javascript-and-screen-readers/comment-page-1/#comment-236957</link>
		<dc:creator>momos</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Apr 2007 05:50:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/?p=1910#comment-236957</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m guessing most people reading this know what a screen reader is though, and if not then you can still look it up (google/wikipedia)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m guessing most people reading this know what a screen reader is though, and if not then you can still look it up (google/wikipedia)</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kevin Yank</title>
		<link>http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2007/04/30/javascript-and-screen-readers/comment-page-1/#comment-236858</link>
		<dc:creator>Kevin Yank</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Apr 2007 03:22:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/?p=1910#comment-236858</guid>
		<description>Sorry about that, what. A screen reader is a software application used by visually impaired users (as well as people with some cognitive disabilities) that reads the content of a web page aloud.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sorry about that, what. A screen reader is a software application used by visually impaired users (as well as people with some cognitive disabilities) that reads the content of a web page aloud.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
