Comments for WebAIM Blog http://webaim.org/blog The WebAIM Web Accessibility Blog Tue, 07 Feb 2012 18:38:43 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 Comment on History of the browser user-agent string by tomexsans http://webaim.org/blog/user-agent-string-history/comment-page-5/#comment-90651 tomexsans Tue, 07 Feb 2012 18:38:43 +0000 http://webaim.org/blog/?p=68#comment-90651 Hahahah so funny, i wish that a team of programmers give time to straighten up this chaotic masquerade of web-browsers. But that is a Mission Impossible ;3 Hahahah so funny, i wish that a team of programmers give time to straighten up this chaotic masquerade of web-browsers. But that is a Mission Impossible ;3

]]> Comment on WCAG Next by Craig McPheat http://webaim.org/blog/wcag-next/comment-page-1/#comment-90635 Craig McPheat Fri, 03 Feb 2012 19:36:41 +0000 http://webaim.org/blog/#comment-90635 Excellent points raised. I have to write my own in-house success criteria and guidelines to get what I want back from suppliers because if I say "to W3C WCAG2" a lot of the points are so wooly they technically meet the requirements, but not to a practical standard. Excellent points raised. I have to write my own in-house success criteria and guidelines to get what I want back from suppliers because if I say “to W3C WCAG2″ a lot of the points are so wooly they technically meet the requirements, but not to a practical standard.

]]> Comment on WCAG Next by Gordon M http://webaim.org/blog/wcag-next/comment-page-1/#comment-90630 Gordon M Thu, 02 Feb 2012 20:56:37 +0000 http://webaim.org/blog/#comment-90630 An example of a validation error that is not directly accessibility related but can still cause problems for assistive technology: (error) start tag for element "ul" which is not closed In a page with many links in lists, an error like this can make it significantly more difficult for someone using a screen reader to navigate to specific sections of a page in a timely manner. Let's say I have downloaded a script that automatically skips between lists on a page so that I can navigate it faster. There is no way the script can work with an invalid document without relying on hacks or guesses. Another issue is the fact that mobile web devices (which are quite popular amongst many people with accessibility issues) don't have nearly the same speed that desktop computers have and are sometimes significantly slowed down by badly coded web pages. A page that passes the other WCAG 2.0 SC's but has bad code can fail because assistive technology simply can't work in a timely manner on a mobile device. An example of a validation error that is not directly accessibility related but can still cause problems for assistive technology:

(error) start tag for element “ul” which is not closed

In a page with many links in lists, an error like this can make it significantly more difficult for someone using a screen reader to navigate to specific sections of a page in a timely manner. Let’s say I have downloaded a script that automatically skips between lists on a page so that I can navigate it faster. There is no way the script can work with an invalid document without relying on hacks or guesses.

Another issue is the fact that mobile web devices (which are quite popular amongst many people with accessibility issues) don’t have nearly the same speed that desktop computers have and are sometimes significantly slowed down by badly coded web pages. A page that passes the other WCAG 2.0 SC’s but has bad code can fail because assistive technology simply can’t work in a timely manner on a mobile device.

]]> Comment on WCAG Next by WCAG 2.0 parsing error bookmarklet | The Paciello Group Blog http://webaim.org/blog/wcag-next/comment-page-1/#comment-90628 WCAG 2.0 parsing error bookmarklet | The Paciello Group Blog Thu, 02 Feb 2012 14:26:11 +0000 http://webaim.org/blog/#comment-90628 [...] reading Jared Smith’s excellent article WCAG Next I was drawn to the following statement “next to impossible to evaluate” in reference to [...] [...] reading Jared Smith’s excellent article WCAG Next I was drawn to the following statement “next to impossible to evaluate” in reference to [...]

]]> Comment on WCAG Next by Jared Smith http://webaim.org/blog/wcag-next/comment-page-1/#comment-90626 Jared Smith Wed, 01 Feb 2012 23:11:01 +0000 http://webaim.org/blog/#comment-90626 Gordon- I do not disagree with you at all. These are all important things. My point is that they are not accessibility-specific issues, but are general technology issues that affect everyone, and as such, they would be better addressed in areas other than the very narrow scope of WCAG. Gordon-

I do not disagree with you at all. These are all important things. My point is that they are not accessibility-specific issues, but are general technology issues that affect everyone, and as such, they would be better addressed in areas other than the very narrow scope of WCAG.

]]> Comment on WCAG Next by Gordon M http://webaim.org/blog/wcag-next/comment-page-1/#comment-90625 Gordon M Wed, 01 Feb 2012 23:02:21 +0000 http://webaim.org/blog/#comment-90625 Hi Jared, interesting points here. I have to fundamentally disagree with you about 4.1.1 though. In fact, I believe this is the most important requirement of all. Anyone who developed in the era of the 90's remembers the browser hell that every web developer had to go through. Beyond simple text-only digests, making web pages accessible was next to impossible. There was no consistency and non-standardized code made things like syndication, social media, collaboration, and meaningful search difficult and cumbersome. People with disabilities deserve to experience web 2.0 just as much as non-disabled people. By enforcing validation, every assistive product out there, whether it is a $2000 screen reader to a free 50KB plugin, can consistently and reliably work on valid pages without requiring thousands of lines of extra code that costs millions of dollars in extra funding. WCAG needs to be able to adapt and grow with the web into the future. As pages get mashed-up, syndicated, shared, plussed, liked, etc. standardization will become even more important, not less. Passing validation is a crucial step to ensuring that the more interactive and advanced web applications of the future can still be made accessible in a reliable and consistent way. Hi Jared, interesting points here.

I have to fundamentally disagree with you about 4.1.1 though. In fact, I believe this is the most important requirement of all.

Anyone who developed in the era of the 90′s remembers the browser hell that every web developer had to go through. Beyond simple text-only digests, making web pages accessible was next to impossible. There was no consistency and non-standardized code made things like syndication, social media, collaboration, and meaningful search difficult and cumbersome. People with disabilities deserve to experience web 2.0 just as much as non-disabled people.

By enforcing validation, every assistive product out there, whether it is a $2000 screen reader to a free 50KB plugin, can consistently and reliably work on valid pages without requiring thousands of lines of extra code that costs millions of dollars in extra funding.

WCAG needs to be able to adapt and grow with the web into the future. As pages get mashed-up, syndicated, shared, plussed, liked, etc. standardization will become even more important, not less. Passing validation is a crucial step to ensuring that the more interactive and advanced web applications of the future can still be made accessible in a reliable and consistent way.

]]> Comment on The plague of outline:0 by Gordon M http://webaim.org/blog/plague-of-outline-0/comment-page-1/#comment-90624 Gordon M Wed, 01 Feb 2012 22:42:56 +0000 http://webaim.org/blog/plague-of-outline-0/#comment-90624 Focus should be the responsibility of the user agent, not the webpage author. Outline none should only be used when you have a RIA with ARIA and advanced javascript fulfilling the role described. Focus should be the responsibility of the user agent, not the webpage author. Outline none should only be used when you have a RIA with ARIA and advanced javascript fulfilling the role described.

]]> Comment on WCAG Next by Sailesh Panchang http://webaim.org/blog/wcag-next/comment-page-1/#comment-90623 Sailesh Panchang Wed, 01 Feb 2012 22:05:41 +0000 http://webaim.org/blog/#comment-90623 When the DOJ sought public comments in 2010 with reference to Web accessibility and the ADA, I suggested they should go with WCAG 2 Level A plus SC 1.4.3 for color contrast and SC 2.4.7 for visual focus indicator as the minimum standard. You are right, I encounter resistance from clients who want to be level A compliant disregard the above two SC because they are at Level AA. They make the page completely unusable by users who need to adjust contrast or are sighted keyboard users. Very good article Thanks, Sailesh When the DOJ sought public comments in 2010 with reference to Web accessibility and the ADA, I suggested they should go with WCAG 2 Level A plus SC 1.4.3 for color contrast and SC 2.4.7 for visual focus indicator as the minimum standard.
You are right, I encounter resistance from clients who want to be level A compliant disregard the above two SC because they are at Level AA. They make the page completely unusable by users who need to adjust contrast or are sighted keyboard users.
Very good article
Thanks,
Sailesh

]]> Comment on WCAG Next by Ghita Jones http://webaim.org/blog/wcag-next/comment-page-1/#comment-90622 Ghita Jones Wed, 01 Feb 2012 14:40:33 +0000 http://webaim.org/blog/#comment-90622 Thoughtful and insightful post, as usual, Jared. Thank you. I would like to point out that those of us who are or want to sell products to state/federal agencies <em>must</em> follow whatever those agencies adopt. In other words, we are 'stuck' with §508 and can only hope it will be finalized and update soon. While we consider WCAG 2.0, we have to address §508 via our VPATs. The sooner these can be "harmonized" the better! Thoughtful and insightful post, as usual, Jared. Thank you.

I would like to point out that those of us who are or want to sell products to state/federal agencies must follow whatever those agencies adopt. In other words, we are ‘stuck’ with §508 and can only hope it will be finalized and update soon. While we consider WCAG 2.0, we have to address §508 via our VPATs. The sooner these can be “harmonized” the better!

]]> Comment on WCAG Next by Jeevan Reddy http://webaim.org/blog/wcag-next/comment-page-1/#comment-90620 Jeevan Reddy Wed, 01 Feb 2012 13:00:59 +0000 http://webaim.org/blog/#comment-90620 Excellent article Jarad. All the points you said are absolutely necessary to improve the Accessibility guidelines (WCAG 2.0). Excellent article Jarad. All the points you said are absolutely necessary to improve the Accessibility guidelines (WCAG 2.0).

]]>