WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: Rules versus "Rules"

for

From: Ryan Hemphill
Date: Apr 13, 2012 6:45AM

Interesting - in our case, we are trying to make the systems that we
created work on JAWS, NVDA and VoiceOver if possible. We aren't spending
any time on other systems because everything that we have is RIA and things
like Windows Eyes can't do it successfully (at least they can't at this
time).

We are also very concerned about the screen readers being able to move
about the system in ways that normal users cannot. Because of this, we are
trying to take measures to insure that bugs are not created that might blow
up the system because there are interactive requirements that might be
ignored by the SR software. Add the focus management pieces and other
major issues that need to be addressed and it becomes obvious (at least to
us) that the main way to make sure the site is accessible first and follows
the Rules if that is an option. "Close enough for practical purposes" has
become the engineering adage we have adhered to in order to make sure that
things are as functional as possible from an accessibility perspective, but
make no mistake - we take our work extremely seriously.

Working in a complex RIA environment that uses some HTML5 functionality has
shown me that the struggles of screen readers may require more leeway in
some cases. I'd like to talk more about these things because we are doing
the best we can to insure our product holds the highest standard in a11y
possible - but that means that in many cases we might not be following the
best practices or even the Rules. Is there any way that we can have our
work assessed for these issues to get a 'blessing' despite this? I also
think it would be a good thing to push these issues out there to recognize
the potential future of RIA for accessibility because the sophistication of
our system really shows some pitfalls that need to be overcome or at least
made public.

Ryan.

On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 10:33 PM, Ryan E. Benson < <EMAIL REMOVED> >wrote:

> Hi Ryan,
>
> I would say it depends on what authority you have on the product, who
> the audience is, and how well you document your justifications for not
> technically meeting something. For the first part, at work when I am
> acting as/for a COTR/COR (Contracting Officer Technical Rep) a
> contractor cannot tell me that they are simply going to do x because
> of some reason. I can instruct them not to do x either because I have
> the authority to do so. Of course they can suggest work arounds, but I
> can say no follow the rules.
>
> For the last criteria I listed, justification, my mindset goes to COTS
> (Commercial Off The Shelf) products and VPATs. While this might not be
> the best example, I think you can see what I mean, say instead of
> using a label, you are doing something with ARIA, you should mark it
> as partially compliant, and in the notes how some fields are using
> ARIA, a sentence overviewing what ARIA is, and a link to a statement
> on your site which: details ARIA, why your company uses it at times,
> and which AT supports it well.
>
> --
> Ryan E. Benson
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 2:24 PM, Ryan Hemphill
> < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:
> > Hey guys,
> >
> > There has been a discussion at my job today about 508/WCAG versus more
> > 'soft assessments' of accessibility considering how well the software
> > actually works.
> >
> > Can anyone weigh in on their experiences? We all know that 'being
> > compliant' on a legal standard doesn't necessarily translate to
> > accessibility. I'm interested to hear your perspective and what you've
> > seen. Have you been seeing the 'soft criteria' initiate change much or
> is
> > it still in debate?
> >
> > Ryan
> >
> > --
> >
> >
> >
> > Shipping is a Feature...Perhaps the Most Important Feature.
> > > > > > > > > >



--



Shipping is a Feature...Perhaps the Most Important Feature.