Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

JAWS license not developer friendly

Expand Messages
  • Rui Cruz
    I got this today in my RSS Reader. Original link: http://webaim.org/blog/jaws-license-not-developer-friendly/ Quoting: For years, we have recommended to
    Message 1 of 4 , Jan 11, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      I got this today in my RSS Reader. Original link:
      http://webaim.org/blog/jaws-license-not-developer-friendly/

      Quoting:
      For years, we have recommended to developers that they download the trial
      version of JAWS <http://www.freedomscientific.com/fs_downloads/jaws.asp> to
      perform basic evaluation of the accessibility of their web sites. Our
      recent, and quite popular, article on using JAWS to evaluate web
      content<http://webaim.org/articles/jaws/>again makes this
      recommendation.

      The demo version (which runs for 40 minutes per session) can be a valuable
      tool for web developers to not only ensure their content is accessible, but
      also compatible with this, the most popular of screen readers. The ability
      for every day web developers to test *actual* accessibility of their web
      content is not only important, but has greatly increased the accessibility
      of web content for blind users.

      We were recently apprised that the licensing agreement for the trial version
      of JAWS states:

      � these demonstration or evaluation licenses are not permitted for purposes
      of development and testing of JAWS scripts, applications, HTML coding, or
      other Web Based code.

      In other words, *you cannot use the demo version of JAWS for web evaluation*.
      In fact, you can't even use the demo version of JAWS to determine how well
      the full version could be used for accessibility evaluation.

      Screen readers are *very* complicated pieces of software. As such, it is
      mostly understandable that they are so expensive ($895 for the standard
      version of JAWS). For many developers, the limitations of the demo would
      facilitate purchasing a license. And certainly the fact that the demo
      version of JAWS has been used for accessibility evaluation (obviously
      despite the licensing terms) has resulted in a great number of JAWS
      purchases.

      But for other developers, particularly those that would perform only basic
      or occasional JAWS testing, the cost is not justifiable. The licensing terms
      for JAWS hurt these developers' ability to create accessible web content for
      blind users. Such limitations are not apparent in demo versions of other
      screen readers, including Window Eyes.

      With technology advancing, the ability for developers to use screen readers
      to evaluate web content is increasing. Indeed, with some web technologies,
      such as Flash, AJAX, and PDF, screen reader testing is about the
      *ONLY*mechanism available for true evaluation.

      If Freedom Scientific has an interest in ensuring that their audience -
      screen reader users with disabilities - continue to be provided with
      accessible materials from the developer community, it would be incumbent
      upon them to modify their licensing terms to allow basic evaluation by
      developers or to provide a more reasonably priced license for developers who
      would use JAWS only rarely for accessibility testing.

      If you would like to see a license change or version that allows testing, I
      invite you to contact Freedom
      Scientific<http://www.freedomscientific.com/fs_about/contact.asp>
      .


      --
      Rui Cruz
      Tel: +351 96 8271502
      Fax: +351 66 96 827 1502
      http://ruicruz.forunsbb.com


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Bas Cancrinus
      Hi Rui, Are you sure that FS doesn t have a developer program with parallel licensing instead? FS wouldn t be a serious market player today if development
      Message 2 of 4 , Jan 13, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Rui,

        Are you sure that FS doesn't have a developer program with parallel
        licensing instead? FS wouldn't be a serious market player today if
        development against their products was prohibited imho.

        Kind regards,
        Bas

        On Jan 11, 2008 11:24 PM, Rui Cruz <ruicruz@...> wrote:

        > I got this today in my RSS Reader. Original link:
        > http://webaim.org/blog/jaws-license-not-developer-friendly/
        >
        > Quoting:
        > For years, we have recommended to developers that they download the trial
        > version of JAWS <http://www.freedomscientific.com/fs_downloads/jaws.asp>
        > to
        > perform basic evaluation of the accessibility of their web sites. Our
        > recent, and quite popular, article on using JAWS to evaluate web
        > content<http://webaim.org/articles/jaws/>again makes this
        > recommendation.
        >
        > The demo version (which runs for 40 minutes per session) can be a valuable
        > tool for web developers to not only ensure their content is accessible,
        > but
        > also compatible with this, the most popular of screen readers. The ability
        > for every day web developers to test *actual* accessibility of their web
        > content is not only important, but has greatly increased the accessibility
        > of web content for blind users.
        >
        > We were recently apprised that the licensing agreement for the trial
        > version
        > of JAWS states:
        >
        > … these demonstration or evaluation licenses are not permitted for
        > purposes
        > of development and testing of JAWS scripts, applications, HTML coding, or
        > other Web Based code.
        >
        > In other words, *you cannot use the demo version of JAWS for web
        > evaluation*.
        > In fact, you can't even use the demo version of JAWS to determine how well
        > the full version could be used for accessibility evaluation.
        >
        > Screen readers are *very* complicated pieces of software. As such, it is
        > mostly understandable that they are so expensive ($895 for the standard
        > version of JAWS). For many developers, the limitations of the demo would
        > facilitate purchasing a license. And certainly the fact that the demo
        > version of JAWS has been used for accessibility evaluation (obviously
        > despite the licensing terms) has resulted in a great number of JAWS
        > purchases.
        >
        > But for other developers, particularly those that would perform only basic
        > or occasional JAWS testing, the cost is not justifiable. The licensing
        > terms
        > for JAWS hurt these developers' ability to create accessible web content
        > for
        > blind users. Such limitations are not apparent in demo versions of other
        > screen readers, including Window Eyes.
        >
        > With technology advancing, the ability for developers to use screen
        > readers
        > to evaluate web content is increasing. Indeed, with some web technologies,
        > such as Flash, AJAX, and PDF, screen reader testing is about the
        > *ONLY*mechanism available for true evaluation.
        >
        > If Freedom Scientific has an interest in ensuring that their audience -
        > screen reader users with disabilities - continue to be provided with
        > accessible materials from the developer community, it would be incumbent
        > upon them to modify their licensing terms to allow basic evaluation by
        > developers or to provide a more reasonably priced license for developers
        > who
        > would use JAWS only rarely for accessibility testing.
        >
        > If you would like to see a license change or version that allows testing,
        > I
        > invite you to contact Freedom
        > Scientific<http://www.freedomscientific.com/fs_about/contact.asp>
        > .
        >
        >
        > --
        > Rui Cruz
        > Tel: +351 96 8271502
        > Fax: +351 66 96 827 1502
        > http://ruicruz.forunsbb.com
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        >
        >
        > The Screen Magnifiers Homepage
        > http://www.magnifiers.org
        > Make It Visible!
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
        >


        --
        Bas Cancrinus - freelance Java-consultant
        Mobile: +31 (0)6 50 24 57 56

        Cancrinus ICT - www.canict.com


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Rui Cruz
        ... Hi, No idea of that, lol. I just paste this from webaim. But if that is on the licence (I beliheve they re serious people so I dont the licence yet) they
        Message 3 of 4 , Jan 13, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          On 1/13/08, Bas Cancrinus <bascancr@...> wrote:
          >
          > Hi Rui,
          >
          > Are you sure that FS doesn't have a developer program with parallel
          > licensing instead? FS wouldn't be a serious market player today if
          > development against their products was prohibited imho.
          >
          > Kind regards,
          > Bas



          Hi,

          No idea of that, lol. I just paste this from webaim.

          But if that is on the licence (I beliheve they're serious people so I dont
          the licence yet) they have two optiosn:
          - ignore the licence
          - get another version "for devolopers" or someting like that

          That I dont know...


          --
          Rui Cruz
          Tel: +351 96 8271502
          Fax: +351 66 96 827 1502
          http://ruicruz.forunsbb.com


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • testpartners
          ... parallel ... if ... so I dont ... The WebAIM blog is not entirely correct, and I have responded there. You can use the demo version to assess whether the
          Message 4 of 4 , Jan 13, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In magnifiers@yahoogroups.com, "Rui Cruz" <ruicruz@...> wrote:
            >
            > On 1/13/08, Bas Cancrinus <bascancr@...> wrote:
            > >
            > > Hi Rui,
            > >
            > > Are you sure that FS doesn't have a developer program with
            parallel
            > > licensing instead? FS wouldn't be a serious market player today
            if
            > > development against their products was prohibited imho.
            > >
            > > Kind regards,
            > > Bas
            >
            >
            >
            > Hi,
            >
            > No idea of that, lol. I just paste this from webaim.
            >
            > But if that is on the licence (I beliheve they're serious people
            so I dont
            > the licence yet) they have two optiosn:
            > - ignore the licence
            > - get another version "for devolopers" or someting like that
            >
            > That I dont know...
            >
            >
            > --
            > Rui Cruz
            > Tel: +351 96 8271502
            > Fax: +351 66 96 827 1502
            > http://ruicruz.forunsbb.com
            >
            >
            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            >


            The WebAIM blog is not entirely correct, and I have responded there.
            You can use the demo version to assess whether the full version
            would be suitable for testing.

            With regard to parallel licensing, you can buy a version of JAWS
            that has a dongle. This allows you to install JAWS on as many
            machines as you like but you can only use it on the machine that has
            the dongle. We use this version in our Test Centre. It costs the
            same as the normal version.

            Nevertheless I would like to see a developer version of JAWS that
            only supports web browsing and perhaps has other limitation such as
            not supporting alternative voices. I wonder how much developers
            would be prepared to pay though.

            Steve
            http://www.labscape.co.uk
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.