You're right that just because something uses the same engine it will automatically be accessible too, although it's certainly a major factor. I'm a bit surprised SeaMonkey turned out to be "not at all useable" when Firefox was useable, since it uses not only the same Gecko engine but also the same Mozilla XUL widget set and I can't find any specifically SeaMonkey-related accessibility bugs in the Mozilla bugzilla. Did you report your issues to anybody? In any case, there have been several minor releases since you tried it as well as new releases of Window-Eyes and Jaws, so you might consider trying the latest version at some point and reporting problems to the Mozilla support-accessibility mailing list:
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-accessibility -- Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis On Sat, 2007-10-27 at 09:02 -0700, Josh de Lioncourt wrote: > Perhaps, but just because hey use the engine, that does not mean the > program itself is accessible. Last time I tried Sea Monkey, for > example, with JFW and Window-Eyes, which was at the beginning of the > year or maybe the end of last year, it was not at all usable. > > > On Oct 27, 2007, at 3:56 AM, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis wrote: > > > That's a false comparison, I'm afraid. Shiira and OmniWeb are minor > > alternative browsers that use the WebKit web engine that underpins > > Safari. There are plenty of minor alternative browsers for Windows > > that > > use either the Gecko web engine that underpins Firefox or the Trident > > web engine that underpins Internet Explorer. Some examples include: > > > > * Netscape: http://browser.netscape.com/ > > * SeaMonkey: http://www.mozilla.org/projects/seamonkey/ > > * Avant: http://www.avantbrowser.com/ > > * Maxthon: http://www.maxthon.com/ > > > > -- > > Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis > > > >
