E-mail List Archives

Search E-mail List Archives for

Number of posts in this thread: 10 (In chronological order)

From: Robert Fentress
Date: Thu, Dec 17 2015 7:19AM
Subject: WCAG criterion failed when content can be read screen reader, when it shouldn't be?
No previous message | Next message →

Can anybody tell me what WCAG criterion would be failed if there was
content that was readable to a screen reader that shouldn't be, for
instance, if one dismisses a modal dialog, but it is still readable by the
screen reader at the end of the page? Thanks.

Best,
Rob

--
Robert Fentress
Senior Accessibility Solutions Designer
540.231.1255

Technology-enhanced Learning & Online Strategies
Assistive Technologies
1180 Torgersen Hall
620 Drillfield Drive (0434)
Blacksburg, Virginia 24061

From: Sundby, Valorie
Date: Thu, Dec 17 2015 7:48AM
Subject: Re: WCAG criterion failed when content can be read screen reader, when it shouldn't be?
← Previous message | Next message →

Here's one: 1.3.2 Meaningful Sequence (Level A)
The correct reading sequence must be programmatically determined.

Valorie

From: Birkir R. Gunnarsson
Date: Thu, Dec 17 2015 8:24AM
Subject: Re: WCAG criterion failed when content can be read screen reader, when it shouldn't be?
← Previous message | Next message →

4.1.2 (name, role, value, and technically state also)
If it should be hidden to all users, it should to be hidden to a
screen reader user as well.



On 12/17/15, Robert Fentress < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> Can anybody tell me what WCAG criterion would be failed if there was
> content that was readable to a screen reader that shouldn't be, for
> instance, if one dismisses a modal dialog, but it is still readable by the
> screen reader at the end of the page? Thanks.
>
> Best,
> Rob
>
> --
> Robert Fentress
> Senior Accessibility Solutions Designer
> 540.231.1255
>
> Technology-enhanced Learning & Online Strategies
> Assistive Technologies
> 1180 Torgersen Hall
> 620 Drillfield Drive (0434)
> Blacksburg, Virginia 24061
> > > > >


--
Work hard. Have fun. Make history.

From: Maxability Accessibility for all
Date: Thu, Dec 17 2015 10:00AM
Subject: Re: WCAG criterion failed when content can be read screen reader, when it shouldn't be?
← Previous message | Next message →

I am confused, 1.3.2 or 4.1.2? Both of them seems convincing to me though I
am leaning towards 1.3.2 Meaningful sequence.

Thanks & Regards
Rakesh


On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 8:54 PM, Birkir R. Gunnarsson <
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:

> 4.1.2 (name, role, value, and technically state also)
> If it should be hidden to all users, it should to be hidden to a
> screen reader user as well.
>
>
>
> On 12/17/15, Robert Fentress < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> > Can anybody tell me what WCAG criterion would be failed if there was
> > content that was readable to a screen reader that shouldn't be, for
> > instance, if one dismisses a modal dialog, but it is still readable by
> the
> > screen reader at the end of the page? Thanks.
> >
> > Best,
> > Rob
> >
> > --
> > Robert Fentress
> > Senior Accessibility Solutions Designer
> > 540.231.1255
> >
> > Technology-enhanced Learning & Online Strategies
> > Assistive Technologies
> > 1180 Torgersen Hall
> > 620 Drillfield Drive (0434)
> > Blacksburg, Virginia 24061
> > > > > > > > > >
>
>
> --
> Work hard. Have fun. Make history.
> > > > >

From: Bourne, Sarah (ITD)
Date: Fri, Dec 18 2015 6:40AM
Subject: Re: WCAG criterion failed when content can be read screen reader, when it shouldn't be?
← Previous message | Next message →

4.1.2 seems more likely to me. But I would consider this a failure of a functional requirement: some users are being shown content that is supposed to be hidden. You happened to notice it because a screen reader was picking it up, but there may other situations where this flaw is evident as well.

sb
Sarah E. Bourne
Director of IT Accessibility, MassIT
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
1 Ashburton Pl. rm 1601 Boston MA 02108
617-626-4502
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
http://www.mass.gov/MassIT

From: Robert Fentress
Date: Fri, Dec 18 2015 8:29AM
Subject: Re: WCAG criterion failed when content can be read screen reader, when it shouldn't be?
← Previous message | Next message →

I tend to agree. I guess 4.1.2 would fail, since the aria-hidden property
is not set properly, but it seems like a bit of a stretch, for some reason.

On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 8:40 AM, Bourne, Sarah (ITD) <
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:

> 4.1.2 seems more likely to me. But I would consider this a failure of a
> functional requirement: some users are being shown content that is supposed
> to be hidden. You happened to notice it because a screen reader was
> picking it up, but there may other situations where this flaw is evident as
> well.
>
> sb
> Sarah E. Bourne
> Director of IT Accessibility, MassIT
> Commonwealth of Massachusetts
> 1 Ashburton Pl. rm 1601 Boston MA 02108
> 617-626-4502
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> http://www.mass.gov/MassIT
>
>

From: Patrick H. Lauke
Date: Fri, Dec 18 2015 8:37AM
Subject: Re: WCAG criterion failed when content can be read screen reader, when it shouldn't be?
← Previous message | Next message →

On 18/12/2015 15:29, Robert Fentress wrote:
> I tend to agree. I guess 4.1.2 would fail, since the aria-hidden property
> is not set properly, but it seems like a bit of a stretch, for some reason.

I'd tend more towards 1.3.2 Meaningful Sequence, as 4.1.2 refers to
"user interface components"; then again, if we're talking about a modal
dialog, that would certainly be a user interface component - but if it's
just some text that gets shown/hidden somehow, I wouldn't necessarily
call it that...

P
--
Patrick H. Lauke

www.splintered.co.uk | https://github.com/patrickhlauke
http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | http://redux.deviantart.com
twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke

From: Moore,Michael (Accessibility) (HHSC)
Date: Fri, Dec 18 2015 8:48AM
Subject: Re: WCAG criterion failed when content can be read screen reader, when it shouldn't be?
← Previous message | Next message →

Sarah,

I really like your reasoning. Perhaps, as accessibility specialists we are overly focused on trying to relate every problem that we find to a specific accessibility standard not being met. I would imagine that the functional requirement of the application specified that the message is hidden after it is dismissed. That functional requirement was not met.

This is more ammunition for me to use in my efforts to make accessibility testing part of the unit, QA, and UAT/regression testing cycles and not a separate activity.

Thanks,

Mike Moore
Accessibility Coordinator
Texas Health and Human Services Commission
Civil Rights Office
(512) 438-3431 (Office)

From: Andrew Kirkpatrick
Date: Fri, Dec 18 2015 8:53AM
Subject: Re: WCAG criterion failed when content can be read screen reader, when it shouldn't be?
← Previous message | Next message →

I would think 1.3.1. If the item is in the DOM, then there may still be an accurate reading order for the content even though you can't see it. 4.1.2 is tempting, but the crux of the issue is that the visual presentation for the page isn't matching the information provided for assistive technology users, so I'm leaning toward 1.3.1. Just my opinion...

Thanks,
AWK

Andrew Kirkpatrick
Group Product Manager, Accessibility
Adobe

= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
http://twitter.com/awkawk
http://blogs.adobe.com/accessibility








On 12/18/15, 10:37, "WebAIM-Forum on behalf of Patrick H. Lauke" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = on behalf of = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:

>On 18/12/2015 15:29, Robert Fentress wrote:
>> I tend to agree. I guess 4.1.2 would fail, since the aria-hidden property
>> is not set properly, but it seems like a bit of a stretch, for some reason.
>
>I'd tend more towards 1.3.2 Meaningful Sequence, as 4.1.2 refers to
>"user interface components"; then again, if we're talking about a modal
>dialog, that would certainly be a user interface component - but if it's
>just some text that gets shown/hidden somehow, I wouldn't necessarily
>call it that...
>
>P
>--
>Patrick H. Lauke
>
>www.splintered.co.uk | https://github.com/patrickhlauke
>http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | http://redux.deviantart.com
>twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
>>>>

From: Birkir R. Gunnarsson
Date: Fri, Dec 18 2015 1:35PM
Subject: Re: WCAG criterion failed when content can be read screen reader, when it shouldn't be?
← Previous message | No next message

My reasoning behind 4.1.2 was my understanding that this was a
checkbox control, not just text.
If this is a widget that is supposed to be hidden (and therefore not
operable at the time), it should not be exposed to some users.
This applies to modal dialogs, content including widgets that is
conditional on user selecting a radiobutton or checking a checkbox on
the page etc.

If said content is in focus order for keyboard only users, one could
look at 2.4.3 as well.

It is true that the specific WCAG criterion is hard to pin down.
But exposing content that is supposed to be invisible to some the
users can easily make the page chaotic and hard to comprehend for
those users, and would create a very bad user experience, even block
some users from being able to interact normally with the page.


On 12/18/15, Andrew Kirkpatrick < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> I would think 1.3.1. If the item is in the DOM, then there may still be an
> accurate reading order for the content even though you can't see it. 4.1.2
> is tempting, but the crux of the issue is that the visual presentation for
> the page isn't matching the information provided for assistive technology
> users, so I'm leaning toward 1.3.1. Just my opinion...
>
> Thanks,
> AWK
>
> Andrew Kirkpatrick
> Group Product Manager, Accessibility
> Adobe
>
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> http://twitter.com/awkawk
> http://blogs.adobe.com/accessibility
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 12/18/15, 10:37, "WebAIM-Forum on behalf of Patrick H. Lauke"
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = on behalf of = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> wrote:
>
>>On 18/12/2015 15:29, Robert Fentress wrote:
>>> I tend to agree. I guess 4.1.2 would fail, since the aria-hidden
>>> property
>>> is not set properly, but it seems like a bit of a stretch, for some
>>> reason.
>>
>>I'd tend more towards 1.3.2 Meaningful Sequence, as 4.1.2 refers to
>>"user interface components"; then again, if we're talking about a modal
>>dialog, that would certainly be a user interface component - but if it's
>>just some text that gets shown/hidden somehow, I wouldn't necessarily
>>call it that...
>>
>>P
>>--
>>Patrick H. Lauke
>>
>>www.splintered.co.uk | https://github.com/patrickhlauke
>>http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | http://redux.deviantart.com
>>twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
>>>>>>>>> > > > >


--
Work hard. Have fun. Make history.