WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: Browser version advice in accessibility statement

for

From: Aaron Leventhal
Date: Nov 4, 2011 10:09AM

Henny, can you advise on what Opera version - screen reader version combos
work best for the "safe" and "full" ARIA cases I mentioned? I'd like to
include that in my list. Sorry for not including in the first place.

Aaron

On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 11:54 AM, Aaron Leventhal < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:

> Hi Kevin,
>
> First, I think reasonable ARIA usage depends on the target audience and
> type of content:
>
> Content:
> 1. For critical pages, such as documentation and support, it seems
> reasonable to support accessibility without ARIA -- only as a progressive
> enhancement
> 2. For pages using dynamic content to spiffy it up, it seems reasonable to
> use WAI-ARIA as a progressive enhancement.
> 3. For content such as rich internet applications, it seems reasonable to
> use ARIA to its fullest power available today.
>
> Target audience:
> 1. If targeting the broad public (e.g. a government website), it seems
> necessary to stay on the safe side.
> 2. If targeting advanced technology users (e.g. a high tech company), it
> seems reasonable to use ARIA a lot more, and to require a more advanced
> browser - screen reader combo for content outside of the basics
> (documentation, support, etc.)
>
> Safe -- content for the broader public, or is primarily static HTML:
> • IE7+ with JAWS 7+, NVDA 2011.1+ or Window-Eyes 5.5+, Hal (version?),
> System Access (version?), etc.
> • Firefox 3.6 + with JAWS 7+, NVDA 2011.1+, Window-Eyes 5.5+
> • Safari 4+ with VoiceOver on Snow Leopard or later
> • Mobile Safari and VoiceOver on iOS 4 or later
>
> Full -- content for a high tech audience or must be dynamic by its nature:
> • IE8+ with JAWS 10+ (unfortunately there is no live region support in
> NVDA+IE)
> • Firefox 3.6+ with JAWS 10+ or NVDA 2011.1+
> • Safari 5+ with VoiceOver on Lion or later
> • Mobile browsers: to be determined
>
> I'm still keeping my eye on Google Chrome. That is becoming more
> accessible.
>
> Finally, regarding the upgrade message. I think this can be done in a
> clever, automatic way. Basically, in the "Full" case we can put in hidden
> content that only non-ARIA screen reader users will hear, a friendly
> message explaining that the site uses ARIA, an advanced technology for
> making websites accessible, and to please press the Enter key to learn
> about supported combinations. I'm looking into some code for this.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Aaron
>
> On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 10:33 AM, Kevin White < <EMAIL REMOVED> >wrote:
>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> I have a client who is doing some excellent work on creating an inclusive
>> and engaging website. In order to do so they are drawing on the features
>> provided in WAI-ARIA. This leads to some difficulties regarding browser and
>> screen reader compatibility and we discussed how to address this. My
>> personal opinion is to use part of the accessibility statement to highlight
>> the efforts but point out the need for users to upgrade but I was curious
>> to understand how people view this?
>>
>> My opinion is based on the idea that ARIA provides the opportunity to
>> help users of assistive technologies but in order to do that there is a
>> need to use a modern browser. User may not know this and by providing
>> information around this there is an opportunity to provide wider help.
>>
>> I would be interested to hear any other views on this,
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Kevin
>>