WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: WCAG criterion failed when content can be read screen reader, when it shouldn't be?

for

From: Birkir R. Gunnarsson
Date: Dec 18, 2015 1:35PM

My reasoning behind 4.1.2 was my understanding that this was a
checkbox control, not just text.
If this is a widget that is supposed to be hidden (and therefore not
operable at the time), it should not be exposed to some users.
This applies to modal dialogs, content including widgets that is
conditional on user selecting a radiobutton or checking a checkbox on
the page etc.

If said content is in focus order for keyboard only users, one could
look at 2.4.3 as well.

It is true that the specific WCAG criterion is hard to pin down.
But exposing content that is supposed to be invisible to some the
users can easily make the page chaotic and hard to comprehend for
those users, and would create a very bad user experience, even block
some users from being able to interact normally with the page.


On 12/18/15, Andrew Kirkpatrick < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:
> I would think 1.3.1. If the item is in the DOM, then there may still be an
> accurate reading order for the content even though you can't see it. 4.1.2
> is tempting, but the crux of the issue is that the visual presentation for
> the page isn't matching the information provided for assistive technology
> users, so I'm leaning toward 1.3.1. Just my opinion...
>
> Thanks,
> AWK
>
> Andrew Kirkpatrick
> Group Product Manager, Accessibility
> Adobe
>
> <EMAIL REMOVED>
> http://twitter.com/awkawk
> http://blogs.adobe.com/accessibility
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 12/18/15, 10:37, "WebAIM-Forum on behalf of Patrick H. Lauke"
> < <EMAIL REMOVED> on behalf of <EMAIL REMOVED> >
> wrote:
>
>>On 18/12/2015 15:29, Robert Fentress wrote:
>>> I tend to agree. I guess 4.1.2 would fail, since the aria-hidden
>>> property
>>> is not set properly, but it seems like a bit of a stretch, for some
>>> reason.
>>
>>I'd tend more towards 1.3.2 Meaningful Sequence, as 4.1.2 refers to
>>"user interface components"; then again, if we're talking about a modal
>>dialog, that would certainly be a user interface component - but if it's
>>just some text that gets shown/hidden somehow, I wouldn't necessarily
>>call it that...
>>
>>P
>>--
>>Patrick H. Lauke
>>
>>www.splintered.co.uk | https://github.com/patrickhlauke
>>http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | http://redux.deviantart.com
>>twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
>>>>>>>>> > > > >


--
Work hard. Have fun. Make history.