Yess indeed. I see so many web sites, for examplewhich claim to be
accessible to this r that standard as tested by ( insert program her).
All this means from my experience is that things can be read, not how
overfull and muddled with its links it is, or the issues of stupid music
playing at the slightest provocation or the actual try to do a task test.
Its purely based on does this read, in my experience.
Brian

bglists@blueyonder.co.uk
Sent via blueyonder.
Please address personal email to:-
briang1@blueyonder.co.uk, putting 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name field.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Brian Vogel" <britechguy@gmail.com>
To: <nvda@nvda.groups.io>
Sent: Friday, June 03, 2016 5:58 PM
Subject: Re: [nvda] [nvda\] NVDA Devils advocate


Hear, hear!!

Software development is not all that different in that regard than any
other pursuit where repair is involved. Just like a mechanic cannot fix
a car if they're unaware of a problem, or if a reported problem cannot
be replicated by them, neither can a programmer do the same for a bug.

This is one of the reasons I download and install the release
candidates. NVDA is not a major corporation with the resources to hire a
dedicated testing department that can flog the software to death. Having
been a programmer, and one in an entity that can and did do that, you
still will not find all potential bugs. Even with very thorough test
"scripts" the general user public will always find a way to do something
that no one could ever have predicted they'd do, and with results that
are sometimes as unpredictable.

Being a late beta tester on NVDA with the release candidates is a good
idea for all users of the software. And those of you who actually use
NVDA as your primary method of access can be a lot more thorough in
testing just by doing what you always do than anyone creating testing
scenarios could hope to be.