WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: Browser version advice in accessibility statement

for

From: Kevin Chao
Date: Nov 6, 2011 3:24PM

There's no excuse or reason at all one should not be running the
latest web browser and assistive technology, such as screen reader.
There's performance, security, accessibility, usability, support, etc.
benefits. Vendors/industry should not be limited due to users refusing
to update.

I think that HTML5 and ARIA should only be applied when needed, such
as rich, interactive, and dynamic sites. If a website is a fairly
static site and standard HTML4 markup will work, there's no need to
add additional complexity by adding in ARIA. However, if in the road
map of a company/site has plans on adding more rich, interactive, and
dynamic components; it's best to build in the HTML5 and ARIA support
during the R&D stage.

When it comes to web browser and assistive technology support, the web
is moving very quickly, and in order for companies/websites to keep
up; the minimum requirement and support must be very strict. It should
be forced to current and previous version, nothing more.

Firefox+NVDA, specifically 10 Nightly and 2011.3 Snapshot has the most
fastest, solid, accurate, and rich support for the web, specifically
HTML5 and ARIA.
NVDA works very well with Chrome 17 Canary and Google is actively
working on fixing a lot of accessibility support in many areas,
including HTML5 and ARIA.

Chrome+ChromeVox on Windows or Mac has very good support for the web
(rich, dynamic, and interactive), but ARIA support is a work in
progress.

Internet Explorer 9/8 does not have proper, robust, and rich
accessibility API's for ARIA and HTML5. Any AT/screen reader who
claims support for it is hacking support in, which results in poor
performance, instability, and buggy/inaccurate results.

iOS 5, VoiceOver, and Safari made a lot of great strides, especially
over iOS 4.3.X in improving HTML5 and ARIA accessibility support.

OS X Lion, Safari, and Voiceover just added ARIA support, it's quite
weak, and has a ways to go still. However, its support for HTML5 and
ARIA is far better than Window-Eyes, who has very weak web support,
and no HTML5 or ARIA.

I'm not sure how well SuperNova and System Access HTML5 and ARIA support is.

Opera web browser should not even been considered at all or mentioned
until it's fully accessible with various assistive technologies.

As a user myself, I don't think it's unreasonable at all to ask the
end-user of a website to upgrade to the latest web browser and AT to
fully utalize, leverage, and benefit from the Web 2.0 features of the
website. This should not be provided in a hidden link, but a visible
link, which when viewed provides the best combination, which on
Windows is Firefox+NVDA. NVDA, which is free and open source has the
best support, which results in the cost factor/excuse being thrown out
the window.

Most of the paid commercial screen readers are ones that I don't use
as their bloated, buggy, slow, and don't have great support for the
web, such as HTML5 and ARIA.

Kevin

On 11/6/11, Aaron Leventhal < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:
> We definitely all need the compatibility list!
>
> Also, as far as inconsistent implementations of ARIA and how it affects
> older users ... If ARIA is implemented well the user should not have any
> trouble, because on almost l cases the accessibility behavior should be what
> they are already accustomed to. The inconsistency really points to the need
> for the ARIA developer portal where proper ARIA techniques are discussed and
> documented. We need aria testing tools, and we need a community that is more
> involved. We need to Identify and document the techniques and issues or
> inconsistencies in key implementations, and get after developers to fix
> their bugs.
>
> I believe this is all possible.
>
> Aaron
>