WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: Focus on adding/removing items

for

From: Whitney Quesenbery
Date: Mar 26, 2015 11:47AM

All arguments for looking at usability and accessibility together.

The problem with relying entirely on checkpoints is that there are too many
cases where the failure doesn't cause as much problem as it might, and
other cases where meeting the checkpoint doesn't solve the usability
problem.

Nothing like seeing people flounder around to make the case. It's been true
in usability, and it's true in accessibility.

My experience has been that understanding what the problem means in action
is a lot more compelling than any list of industry or internal guidelines.
Working through the issues so that the whole team understands the usability
barriers and how to think about them in a new way is so much more powerful
than being the checklist police.




On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 5:19 PM Robert Fentress < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:

> Excellent, Cliff. I agree that 2.4.3 provides a good "official"
> justification. Thanks for pointing that out.
> On Mar 25, 2015 4:22 PM, "Cliff Tyllick" < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:
>
> > Rob, by approaching it from the standpoint of performance objectives—a
> > concept mentioned in Section 508, by the way—you could attack that
> > usability issue head-on.
> >
> > In other words, the standard becomes "accessible to and usable by" people
> > with disabilities.
> >
> > "It's unusable to everyone else, too," isn't safe harbor, especially for
> > an educational institution. What matters is to make the interface usable
> > for people with disabilities.
> >
> > If they want to leave it unusable for everyone else, I guess that option
> > is available. But it must be usable by people with disabilities,
> regardless
> > of how many checkpoints it passes.
> >
> > I've probably said all that before. If you absolutely must point to a
> > failed SC, I would choose SC 2.4.3, Focus Order, which finishes with,
> > "focusable components receive focus in an order that preserves meaning
> and
> > operability." (Level A)
> >
> > I would argue that when the focus is lost you also lose operability. They
> > agree that this is a usability problem, so surely they must recognize
> that
> > operability has been disrupted. For it to pass 2.4.3, that can't happen.
> >
> >
> >
> > Cliff Tyllick
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> > Although its spellcheck often saves me, all goofs in sent messages are
> its
> > fault.
> >
> > On Mar 25, 2015, at 9:06 AM, Robert Fentress < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:
> >
> > >>
> > > > > > > >
> > > >