WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: AJAX accessibility issue

for

From: Ryan Hemphill
Date: Mar 22, 2012 9:33AM

I could be wrong but dropping it into the forms mode should do the same
thing. Like I said, it could be wrong, but I would give that a shot as
well.


Ryan


On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 11:25 AM, John Martyn DoItBlind.com <
<EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:

> Can you try a forced screen refresh with JAWS key + escape and see if that
> does anything. I have encountered some pages like this and the screen
> refresh worked in some cases.
> John Martyn
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: <EMAIL REMOVED>
> [mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> ] On Behalf Of Ritz, Courtney
> L.
> (GSFC-7500)
> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2012 7:48 AM
> To: WebAIM Discussion List ( <EMAIL REMOVED> )
> Subject: [WebAIM] AJAX accessibility issue
>
> Hi all,
>
> Apologies if this topic has already been discussed on-list. Because it's a
> rather last-minute issue, I haven't had time to dig through the archives.
>
> We have a Web application here that uses some AJAX in at least one Web
> form.
> I can't link to the Web app because it's password-protected and behind our
> firewall, sorry. In this form, the user selects an item, which causes some
> new form fields to appear for that selected item. As a JAWS user, when I
> select one of these items, I get no feedback whatsoever that anything has
> occurred at all.
>
> The developer is currently trying some of the suggestions demonstrated on
> the Juicy Studios site. While they work, they require me to turn off the
> JAWS virtual PC cursor in order to hear the notification that the action
> has
> taken place. To me, while this is technically doable, it requires extra
> steps that the average JAWS user here isn't going to wish to bother with.
> Not only that, I don't know how or if this works with other screen readers.
>
> Are there any better solutions to this that I can suggest to the developer,
> or is the best solution to find a non-AJAX method for performing these
> functions? Whatever we go with has to be able to be considered Section 508
> compliant, obviously.
>
> Thanks much.
>
> Courtney
>