WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: for Chrome devs: intro to accessibility course

for

From: Cameron Cundiff
Date: Sep 11, 2013 6:14AM

On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 5:42 AM, Alastair Campbell < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:

> Jennison Asuncion wrote:
>
> > This free, online course from Google's Accessibility team is targeted at
> > devs and others who work using Chrome. While the course is called
> > Introduction to Web Accessibility, the specific focus is on
> blind/visually
> > impaired users' accessibility. g.co/webaccessibility
>
>
> Is anyone else uncomfortable with how user-agent specific the course
> appears to be?
>
>
It seems more practical to focus on a single user agent and screen reader
for a course of limited scope. Chrome is integral to the dev environment of
many web development professionals I know, mostly because it is fast and
has excellent build in debugging tools.


> It isn't just that it appears to reinforce the view that accessibility > visual impairment, but also that ChromeVox appears to be the primary tool
> for testing.
>

ChromeVox seems like the natural option when using the Chrome browser and
given the scope of the course (and that it's Google). Even though VoiceOver
works well with Chrome, it is a black box with regards to its API as far as
I can tell, so less useful in terms of outlining the technology. NVDA is
Windows only. This is my personal experience again, but most web devs I
know use a Mac.


> It is especially troubling given Marco's excellent explanation of why
> ChromeVox can interpret things differently, as it doesn't use the browser's
> API:
> http://www.marcozehe.de/2013/09/07/why-accessibility-apis-matter/
>

I agree with Marco (see my follow up comment and link on the post). I'd
like to see VoiceOver be the de facto testing tool for devs on OS X. But
its still has roadblocks for dev workflow without patching.


> I'm almost inclined to tell developers and even accessibility testers *not*
> to use ChromeVox as it the least used, and it is likely to work differently
> from the ones that people do use.
>

This is a great point, though I'd ask, is ChromeVox high enough fidelity
that it would be useful? Is it so different that it'd be harmful, and in
what ways?

I'll hold criticism for the moment as the course materials are not up yet,
> but alarm bells are ringing...
>
> -Alastair
> > > >