WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: Naming and labeling tables in Word

for

From: Jonathan Metz
Date: May 28, 2014 1:22PM

Well put, Whitney.

Though I disagree with the suggestion to "Forget certifying people. Let's
have certifications for file formats and converters." We have those
certifications already, but all it shows is that some people are able
memorize what to do in certain circumstances for certain programs.

Making Office documents accessible is essentially providing documents with
the understanding that it's purpose should be for users who require
accessibility features of software that is able to edit/use docx/ xlsx/
pptx.

If you start to focus solely on making documents accessible only for AT,
you run the risk of inadvertently ignoring disabilities that don't
technically require AT, but may benefit from properly implemented
accessibility techniques. My recommendation would be to follow the
suggestion made by Bill Peterson of the DHS, which is to focus on
designing for standards, not for assistive technology (AT).

More reasons to avoid testing for AT:

' AT varies a lot – versions change regularly;
' Coding to a specific AT device is only as good as the version it's coded
to;
' Sophisticated AT devices like JAWS cheat;
' Just because an application works with JAWS does not mean it is 508
compliant;
' Jaws is an AT device, not a *measure of compliance* with 508 standards.



-Jon



On 5/28/14, 2:32 PM, "Whitney Quesenbery" < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:

>Sigh.
>I sometimes (often informally) teach groups how to make Office docs
>accessible.
>
>The advice seems to come in three groups:
>
>1. The majority is essentially: Use Word as it was intended to make a
>correctly formatted document. I find myself saying this over and over
>again for structure, styles, lists, columns, headings, etc.
>
>2. There's a small group of "good practice things to do that are important
>for screen readers and make the document ready for PDF" This includes
>thinks like hyperlinks and tables and setting language.
>
>3. There's an even smaller set of "things you have to change about how you
>write" which I think just includes adding alt text, checking
>color/contrast, and placing images inline.
>
>
>
>My "sigh" list is:
>
>1. If everyone did #1 and #2 as a matter of course, it wouldn't take more
>than an inter-office memo to teach the additions for accessibility (#3).
>
>I've even had companies ask me to teach accessible docs as a way to force
>people to learn good document structure and plain language, since they
>won't show up for those topics.
>
>2. This stuff is so basic that I don't understand why we can't have
>consistency across the applications. Please. Please. Please.
>
>Maybe we can stop "innovating" long enough to get simple things right. So
>that the screen readers can finally actually learn to read the file
>formats. And so that the conversions between formats (Office to PDF and
>Office to Web) will work correctly. They are just bugs as far as I can
>see.
>
>Forget certifying people. Let's have certifications for file formats and
>converters.
>
>
>
>
>
>On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 1:06 PM, Jonathan Avila
>< <EMAIL REMOVED> >wrote:
>
>> > 1. Is there any other screen reader that does make of use of these
>> semantic hooks Word allows?
>>
>> You need to make sure the Defined Bookmarked Tables override verbosity
>> setting in JAWS is set to "off" for the bookmarks to be announced.
>>
>> Jonathan
>>
>>