Do You Need to Test with Every Screen Reader?

When discussing accessibility audits with clients, one question comes up time and time again:

"Do I really need to test my website or app with every screen reader?"

It's a fair question.

There are several screen readers available across Windows, macOS, iOS and Android, and if you've never looked into digital accessibility before, it's easy to assume you need to test everything.

Rather than answering with my own opinion, I thought it would be more useful to look at the data.

Where does the data come from?

One of the most respected sources of accessibility research is WebAIM (Web Accessibility In Mind), a non-profit organisation based at Utah State University that has been helping organisations improve digital accessibility since 1999.

WebAIM is widely recognised for its accessibility research, training and audits. Each year it also publishes findings from its Screen Reader User Survey, one of the largest surveys of screen reader users worldwide, along with its well-known WebAIM Million report, which analyses accessibility issues across the top one million homepages on the web.

The figures below are taken from the most recent WebAIM Screen Reader User Survey #10.

Who took part?

Like any survey, it's important to understand who the respondents were before interpreting the results.

The survey analysed 1,539 valid responses.

Some interesting observations include:

• Most respondents (77.9%) were based in North America (717) and Europe (467).

• Nearly three-quarters (73.8%) were between 21 and 60 years of age.

• Almost 90% (89.9%) used screen readers because of a disability.

• Blindness (76.6%) and low vision/visually-impaired (19.9%) were the most commonly reported disabilities.

• Users with disabilities generally reported much higher levels of screen reader proficiency than respondents without disabilities.

What does the data tell us?

Almost half of respondents reported using desktop/laptop and mobile devices equally.

Desktop and laptop

The two most commonly used desktop screen readers were:

• NVDA (40.5%)

• JAWS (37.7%)

Interestingly, more than seven in ten respondents (71.6%) reported using more than one desktop screen reader, suggesting that many experienced screen reader users switch between tools depending on the task at hand.

The most common browser and screen reader combinations were:

• Chrome + JAWS (24.7%)

• Chrome + NVDA (21.3%)

Usage also varied by region.

JAWS remained the most popular screen reader in North America and Australia, while NVDA was more widely used across Europe, Africa/Middle East and Asia.

Mobile and tablet

On mobile devices, the picture was much clearer.

VoiceOver was by far the most widely used screen reader (70.6%), followed by TalkBack (34.7%).

Safari (58.2%) and Chrome (27.9%) were the most commonly used mobile browsers.

One finding that stood out was that respondents were more likely to complete everyday tasks, such as banking or shopping, using mobile apps (58%) rather than websites (42%).

User satisfaction

Perhaps unsurprisingly, users reported very high levels of satisfaction with their primary screen reader.

The highest satisfaction ratings were:

• NVDA: 97.6%

• JAWS: 95.6%

• VoiceOver: 92.4%

• Narrator: 88.9%

What does this mean for your business?

This is where the statistics become practical.

No accessibility audit can realistically test every possible browser, operating system and assistive technology combination.

Fortunately, the evidence suggests that this isn't necessary.

For most organisations, testing with carefully selected browser and screen reader combinations provides excellent coverage of how people with disabilities are likely to experience your website or mobile application.

For desktop testing, combinations such as Chrome with NVDA and Chrome with JAWS provide broad coverage across the most widely used Windows screen readers.

For mobile testing, VoiceOver on iOS remains the benchmark, particularly given its widespread adoption and the popularity of Safari among screen reader users.

The exact combinations you choose may vary depending on your audience, the regions you operate in and the devices your customers use.

Closing thoughts

One of the reasons I started Empathy Edge UX was because I believe the best product decisions happen when evidence, empathy and experience come together.

Accessibility is no different.

The research helps us understand how people use assistive technology. The standards help us measure accessibility consistently. Empathy reminds us why any of it matters in the first place.

When those three things come together, accessibility becomes much more than just compliance. It becomes an opportunity to create products that more people can use with confidence.

So don't let accessibility become more complicated than it needs to be.

Start with the evidence. Understand your users. Test using the combinations that best reflect the people you're designing for. Then use what you learn to make meaningful improvements.

That's exactly how we approach accessibility audits at Empathy Edge UX. We combine recognised accessibility standards, real-world assistive technology testing and trusted research to provide practical recommendations that help you understand where you are today, what matters most and what to do next.

Accessibility starts with empathy, but it succeeds through action.

Every barrier you remove is another opportunity for someone to use, trust and benefit from your product.