WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: Value and prioritization of large-scale things awebsite can do for improved accessibility

for

From: Dave Merrill
Date: Apr 18, 2013 9:30PM

Bryan, it's not me who's shut it down, it's a company decision. It would be
different if we expected technically sophisticated accessibility experts to
be major users of our software, but realistically, that's not the case.

Based on everything I've heard here and elsewhere, addressing accessibility
in helpful ways takes more experience and effort than we expect from
typical content-contributor or template-builder users. The first tool on
the table was a simple ARIA landmark role dropdown for content containers,
which I would have liked to provide. However, once you start talking about
accessibility beyond headings, you hit the issues we've discussed around
the tricky relationship between semantic container nesting, headings and
landmarks. We didn't see any way to distill those messy structural concepts
into user-friendly tools appropriate for our user base.

There's some chance I'll still be able to get landmarks in, since they're
trivially easy to build, but I doubt it. They're somewhat out of place in
our context, even though they could be useful in the right hands.

To be honest, the decision to drop this made me sad, unexpectedly so,
though I understood it.

Dave Merrill


On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 7:42 PM, Bryan Garaventa <
<EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:

> I wouldn't shut it down, just express caution. It's a powerful capability,
> but unfortunately the number of ways to properly implement it, is only a
> tiny fraction of the number of ways it can be improperly applied. It really
> does take a good understanding of screen reader behavior and testing to get
> everything working correctly.
>
> ARIA regions and landmarks are easier, since they simply group content
> containers based on similar characteristics.
>
> I don't mean to be discouraging, just to impress the importance of being
> aware of all of the variables involved, which will save you many headaches
> later down the road.
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dave Merrill" < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
> To: "WebAIM Discussion List" < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
> Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2013 7:12 AM
> Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Value and prioritization of large-scale things
> awebsite can do for improved accessibility
>
>
> > It looks like I've been shut down on doing anything with ARIA for now,
> for
> > a combination of reasons. Semantic containers are in, again for a variety
> > of reasons; no doubt they'll be used with varying degrees of correctness
> > and accessibility.
> >
> > Thanks very much to all for their thoughts and experiences, great
> > community.
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 1:54 AM, Bryan Garaventa <
> > <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:
> >
> >> I don't mean to sound hard about this; I'm sorry if what I've written
> >> before
> >> sounds this way.
> >>
> >> Literally every day, I see examples of how incorrectly implemented ARIA
> >> causes accessibility issues for screen reader users. I'm actually a huge
> >> supporter of ARIA, but there must be a systematic approach to
> >> implementing
> >> it, that involves a combination of both adherence to the widget types
> >> that
> >> it applies to, and screen reader testing to ensure that the
> >> implementation
> >> is properly supported.
> >>
> >> In the vast majority of cases where I see this breakdown occur, is when
> >> ARIA
> >> is perceived as a magic bullet, where adding the attributes is seen as a
> >> means for making things accessible. ARIA cannot 'make things accessible'
> >> however, and this is very important.
> >>
> >> With regard to interactive widgets for example, if the scripting doesn't
> >> exactly match the applied ARIA attributes, and the browser doesn't
> >> exactly
> >> support the ARIA implementation, or if the screen reader doesn't
> >> specifically support the implementation, the widget will not work as
> >> intended.
> >>
> >> Granted, support will increase in time. However if the ARIA implantation
> >> is
> >> coded incorrectly, it will likely never be properly supported.
> >>
> >> What I'm trying to say here, is that ARIA is not a fix-all, and it
> should
> >> not be liberally thrown into pages without a systematic approach to
> >> determine both current levels of support and practical accessibility at
> >> the
> >> same time.
> >>
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Bryan Garaventa" < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
> >> To: "WebAIM Discussion List" < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
> >> Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 4:10 PM
> >> Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Value and prioritization of large-scale things
> >> awebsite can do for improved accessibility
> >>
> >>
> >> >I did want to clarify one thing, it is possible, in JAWS 14 at least,
> to
> >> >use
> >> > aria-labelledby in combination with role="region" to surround an
> entire
> >> > content region with a label text that is present elsewhere on the
> page.
> >> >
> >> > However, this would not be good for extended content, such as a
> >> paragraph,
> >> > since this text would not only be announced at the beginning but also
> >> > at
> >> > the
> >> > end of the content, and is only good for denoting the boundaries of a
> >> > given
> >> > region with label text.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > ----- Original Message -----
> >> > From: "Bryan Garaventa" < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
> >> > To: "WebAIM Discussion List" < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
> >> > Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 1:08 PM
> >> > Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Value and prioritization of large-scale things a
> >> > website can do for improved accessibility
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> aria-labelledby cannot be used for this purpose.
> >> >>
> >> >> E.G
> >> >>
> >> >> <p aria-labelledby="anotherParagraph">
> >> >> Content
> >> >> </p>
> >> >> <p id="anotherParagraph">
> >> >> Some other content
> >> >> </p>
> >> >>
> >> >> ARIA should not be used all over the place just because it's ARIA,
> >> >> this
> >> >> will
> >> >> introduce accessibility issues for screen reader users, especially
> >> >> when
> >> >> the
> >> >> ARIA attributes being introduced are not being applied by those who
> >> >> aren't
> >> >> familiar with the ARIA specification or with how these attributes
> >> >> effect
> >> >> screen reader behavior.
> >> >>
> >> >> E.G
> >> >>
> >> >> <ul class="menu">
> >> >> <li role="option">
> >> >> Menu item one
> >> >> </li>
> >> >> <li role="option">
> >> >> Menu item two
> >> >> </li>
> >> >> </ul>
> >> >>
> >> >> This is an incorrect usage of ARIA that confuses screen reader
> >> >> feedback
> >> >> and
> >> >> provides no value for screen reader users. Nevertheless I've seen
> this
> >> >> done
> >> >> recently on enterprise software that is being pushed out to thousands
> >> >> of
> >> >> businesses.
> >> >>
> >> >> ARIA should not be used without a clear understanding of what is
> being
> >> >> used
> >> >> and why.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> >> From: "Dave Merrill" < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
> >> >> To: "WebAIM Discussion List" < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
> >> >> Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 12:21 PM
> >> >> Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Value and prioritization of large-scale things
> a
> >> >> web
> >> >> site can do for improved accessibility
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>> Paul, is aria-labelledby a good way to say that the description for
> >> some
> >> >>> static content is in some other container elsewhere?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Here's what I'm thinking: Our software make a distinction between
> >> >>> content
> >> >>> contributors and template designers. Contributors are subject-matter
> >> >>> experts and/or public-facing marketers, who quite likely don't know
> >> >>> about
> >> >>> ARIA, or even much HTML. My thought was that ARIA attributes, like
> >> >>> container creation and choice of container element type, were in
> >> >>> designer-land, not content-land. From that standpoint, it would be
> >> >>> better
> >> >>> if template designers could effectively say, "announce this using
> the
> >> >>> content from that paragraph over there", which a contributor would
> >> >>> write,
> >> >>> rather than making the designer responsible for that labeling
> >> >>> themselves.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Am I being clear? Would aria-labelledby provide that indirection
> >> >>> appropriately, for static content?
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 3:02 PM, Paul J. Adam < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
> >> >>> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> Mark up your HTML5 sections with WAI-ARIA Landmark roles and give
> >> >>>> them
> >> >>>> an
> >> >>>> aria-label, i.e. <nav role="navigation" aria-label="Navigation">.
> >> >>>> The
> >> >>>> aria-label should be announced as the accessible name for that
> >> >>>> container.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Don't limit ARIA to just dynamic content, role=button is great for
> >> faux
> >> >>>> button elements, aria-required=true great for required fields.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> If you're planning for the future WAI-ARIA support will only grow
> >> >>>> and
> >> >>>> become more consistent just like HTML5 and CSS3.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Paul J. Adam
> >> >>>> Accessibility Evangelist
> >> >>>> www.deque.com
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> On Apr 17, 2013, at 1:54 PM, Steve Green
> >> >>>> < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
> >> >>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> > I think that landmarks are fine but ARIA is primarily intended
> for
> >> >>>> dynamic content. There comes a point when adding more semantic
> >> >>>> markup
> >> >>>> actually starts to reduce the accessibility because the 'noise'
> gets
> >> in
> >> >>>> the
> >> >>>> way of the content. I would therefore reserve the use of ARIA for
> >> >>>> dynamic
> >> >>>> content, and even then only when it is actually needed. Some
> >> >>>> well-designed
> >> >>>> dynamic content does not need it.
> >> >>>> >
> >> >>>> > I think there is already an obvious implicit relationship between
> >> >>>> > a
> >> >>>> heading and its container, and that aria-labelledby is really
> >> >>>> intended
> >> >>>> for
> >> >>>> use where relationships are not obvious or implicit.
> >> >>>> >
> >> >>>> > Steve
> >> >>>> >
> >> >>>> >