[dangrossman]

This is a myth. Screen readers have no problem with ordinary sites built with JavaScript. WebAIM did a survey of screen reader users, and 98.6% have JavaScript enabled when they browse the web.

http://webaim.org/projects/screenreadersurvey4/#javascript

People that use screen readers use ordinary browsers, like IE, Firefox and Chrome. They don't use special browsers, screen readers read the whole screen.

[bphogan]

I am a person that uses screenreaders frequently.

I use Firefox and JAWS.

It is incredibly difficult for me to navigate sites that use JS to render content.

And as a developer, it's outrageous to me that people who consider themselves web developers to think it's OK to render static content (news articles, blog postings, etc) using client-side JS.

Angular, Ember, etc are all amazing tools for building applications. They are not amazing tools for web pages.

Now, I don't know if you specifically also use a screen reader, but if you do, I'd love to know what you use.

But for those of you that don't, I'd appreciate you not trivializing the issue. Accessibility of a site and how it works with screenreaders is up to the individual developer.

Did you know that Flash was accessible to screen readers? Too bad developers never paid attention to how to do that.

[logfromblammo]

Remember, the screen reader reads the entire screen. If you don't provide some thought to the user experience, people using screen readers can still use your site full of menus and sidebars and advertisements and article pagination, but they will probably be very frustrated by it, trying to find the content that they actually want to hear.

Imagine the person who essentially has to look at the world through a drinking straw, and try not to be a dick to him by adding clutter. Copying your content into pages with simple navigation--without frames or scripts, possibly with tree-hierarchy outlines and prev-next links--is not required, but is definitely a nice gesture.