WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Recommending Widget Markup that Doesn't Work in Reality

for

From: Brooks newton
Date: Feb 10, 2016 1:34PM

Hi Folks,

Here are a few questions for the Web accessibility experts who are in positions to recommend advice to Web site production teams that are ready to take action to build out pages for launch.

Do you recommend ARIA-enabled solutions for complex widgets, when you know full and well that there is no combination of OS, browser and assistive technology that will render the particular widget accessible, in terms of actual performance? If so, wouldn't everyone agree that it is imperative to communicate the fact that a proposed solution is "theoretically sound," yet functionally inaccessible given the current state of software?

Over the years I've seen a lot of theoretical solutions that pass WCAG compliance muster, which would in no way pass a more stringent standard, such as the performance objectives central to standards like the Twenty First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act (CVAA).

Do any accessibility experts out there ever tell their clients that some design patterns are inherently inaccessible, given the current state of technology? If this is the case, do you recommend an alternate, fully accessible version of the inherently inaccessible widget or content? Or, is the better advice to simply give up on the fancy widget for now and stick with old school accessible techniques to present the same content to users so all abilities?

Last question: Why don't we have an accessible, freely available centralized repository of fully vetted ARIA design patterns, with a full compatibility matrix that displays OS, browser, AT, etc. compatibility? Are the competitive pressures between companies /agencies keeping us from reaching a consensus on what advanced cookbook solutions work now and which theoretical models need additional support before we can recommend with confidence to clients?


Brooks Newton


Sent from my iPad

> On Feb 10, 2016, at 12:20 PM, <EMAIL REMOVED> wrote:
>
> Send WebAIM-Forum mailing list submissions to
> <EMAIL REMOVED>
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://list.webaim.org/mailman/listinfo/webaim-forum
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> <EMAIL REMOVED>
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> <EMAIL REMOVED>
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of WebAIM-Forum digest..."
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Accessibility Testing Tools that Work on a Screen Reader?
> (Jared Smith)
> 2. Re: JAWS 15 Vs JAWS 16 (Carousel widget example) (Robert Fentress)
> 3. Re: here is a peace about access in education i wrote
> (John E. Brandt)
> 4. Re: Accessible SharePoint (Andrews, David B (DEED))
> 5. Re: JAWS 15 Vs JAWS 16 (Carousel widget example) (Jonathan Avila)
> 6. Re: Accessibility Testing Tools that Work on a Screen Reader?
> (Jonathan Avila)
> 7. Re: JAWS 15 Vs JAWS 16 (Carousel widget example) (Robert Fentress)
> 8. Re: JAWS 15 Vs JAWS 16 (Carousel widget example) (Bryan Garaventa)
> 9. Re: JAWS 15 Vs JAWS 16 (Carousel widget example) (Jonathan Avila)
> 10. Re: JAWS 15 Vs JAWS 16 (Carousel widget example) (Detlev Fischer)
> 11. Re: Accessibility Testing Tools that Work on a Screen Reader?
> (Sean Murphy)
> 12. Best method of hiding text based upon a answer. (Sean Murphy)
> 13. Re: screen reader usage? (Sean Murphy)
> 14. Re: JAWS 15 Vs JAWS 16 (Carousel widget example) (Jonathan Avila)
> 15. Re: Activating controls with hidden accessible names using
> speech recognition (Robert Fentress)
> 16. Re: Activating controls with hidden accessible names using
> speech recognition (_mallory)
> 17. Re: JAWS 15 Vs JAWS 16 (Carousel widget example) (Robert Fentress)
> 18. Lift Assistive (Thompson, Rachel)
> 19. Re: Lift Assistive (Jonathan Avila)
> <mime-attachment>
> <mime-attachment>
> <mime-attachment>
> <mime-attachment>
> <mime-attachment>
> <mime-attachment>
> <mime-attachment>
> <mime-attachment>
> <mime-attachment>
> <mime-attachment>
> <mime-attachment>
> <mime-attachment>
> <mime-attachment>
> <mime-attachment>
> <mime-attachment>
> <mime-attachment>
> <mime-attachment>
> <mime-attachment>
> <mime-attachment>
> > > >