WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: Browser version advice in accessibility statement

for

From: Aaron Leventhal
Date: Nov 4, 2011 1:00PM

Hi Christophe, I agree that every effort should be made to support older
versions of JAWS and IE, and screen readers w/o ARIA support (like
Windoew-Eyes). However, in dynamic content it's not always feasible. In
many cases, depending on the audience and type of content, it simply makes
sense to use ARIA.

To make things better for users of JAWS 7 or IE7, etc., I advocate a few
things:
- Use "safe" ARIA techniques as a progressive enhancement when feasible
- When "full" ARIA support is necessary, inform users with older technology
of the need to upgrade and what their options are -- via the fancy
automatic approach if we can get that to work well.

As far as WCAG 2 compliance in that case, a strict reading of accessibility
supported indicates we just need a free alternative -- such as Firefox +
NVDA. Unfortunately as much as we'd all like to, we can't support five year
old screen reading solutions in modern web content. We need to start
educating users of the need to refresh their technology.

Aaron

On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 2:04 PM, Christophe Strobbe <
<EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:

> Hi Aaron,
>
> At 16:54 4-11-2011, Aaron Leventhal wrote:
>
>> (...)
>>
>>
>> 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
>>
>
> This list reminds me of a similar list I wrote last year (in deliverable
> D3.1.2 for the AEGIS project; PDF at <http://tinyurl.com/6jjw8pz>;):
>
> * Internet Explorer 7 with JAWS 9 on Windows XP with Service Pack 3 (older
> versions of Internet Explorer and JAWS have no support for WAI-ARIA),
> * Firefox 3.0 with JAWS 9 on Windows XP with Service Pack 3 (Firefox 2
> also supported MSAA and early drafts of WAI-ARIA),
> * Firefox 3.0 with Window-Eyes 5.5 on Windows XP with Service Pack 3,
> * Internet Explorer 7 with MAGic 11 on Windows XP with Service Pack 3,
> * Internet Explorer 7 with ZoomText 9 on Windows XP with Service Pack 3,
> * Safari 3 on Mac OS X 10.5 with VoiceOver,
> * Firefox 3.0 with Orca on Ubuntu 8.04 LTS ("Hardy Heron"),
> * Firefox 3.0 with GNOME's built-in magnifiers on Ubuntu 8.04 LTS ("Hardy
> Heron").
>
> This list was intended for creating accessibility support documentation
> ("accessibility support" as defined by WCAG 2.0), hence JAWS 9 instead of
> JAWS 7. (JAWS 7 is still in use, even in countries with refund schemes for
> assistive technologies, e.g. Belgium.)
>
> Best regards,
>
> Christophe
>
>
> 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
>>
>> (...)
>>
>> 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
>>
>
>
> --
> Christophe Strobbe
> K.U.Leuven - Dept. of Electrical Engineering - SCD
> Research Group on Document Architectures
> Kasteelpark Arenberg 10 bus 2442
> B-3001 Leuven-Heverlee
> BELGIUM
> tel: +32 16 32 85 51
> http://www.docarch.be/
> Twitter: @RabelaisA11y
> ---
> Open source for accessibility: results from the AEGIS project
> www.aegis-project.eu
> ---
> Please don't invite me to Facebook, Quechup or other "social networks".
> You may have agreed to their "privacy policy", but I haven't.
>
>
>