WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: Proper Markup on Web Pages

for

From: Mike Barlow
Date: May 13, 2016 9:40AM

Brandon, this goes on to a discussion I was having with a college student
in CompSci last nite that too many developers these days don't even know
how to properly write code by hand at all these days (let alone understand
W3C). Which as an aside of my conversation with him last nite he invited me
to give a lecture on accessibility at their University's Computer Club in
the fall.

*Mike Barlow*
Web Application Developer
Web Accessibility/Section 508 SME

Lancaster, Pa 17601
Office: 732.835-7557
Cell: 732.682.8226
e-mail: <EMAIL REMOVED>

On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 12:29 AM, Brandon Keith Biggs <
<EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:

> Hello,
> I think anything related to backends needs to be tested for accessibility
> of its front-end output. Weather that be a motherboard manufacturer (Bios
> are still not accessible) or Django, all the output needs to push for
> accessibility in everything.
> If we wish front-end developers to create accessible content, they need to
> be strongly nudged by the libraries they are using to do so. Most people
> use libraries or engines now to make anything and this is leading to a
> generation of front-end developers who can't comprehend W3C, let alone put
> it into use. I know I still have a hard time comprehending some stuff on
> W3C, but I can sure make a website.
> Thanks,
>
>
> Brandon Keith Biggs <http://brandonkeithbiggs.com/>;
>
> On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 11:46 AM, Brooks Newton < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
> wrote:
>
> >
> > Hey Brandon,
> >
> > I want to be clear in communicating my opinion that I do believe there is
> > a tremendous amount of work that absolutely must be done by site and
> mobile
> > app owners to support the accessibility of their content. No doubt about
> > that, site / app owners, developers and other digital content production
> > staff have their work cut out for them in the years ahead to uphold their
> > ethical and legal obligations in making the Web and mobile app offerings
> > more accessible. And in keeping with this opinion, my position is that
> > content owners must also have a clear path to accessibility available to
> > them, in terms of having a more complete list sufficient techniques at
> hand
> > (for example, preapproved code snippets for implementing accessible Web
> > page elements) related to making available advanced digital content for
> use
> > by people with all abilities. We need to develop and publicize
> "approved"
> > code constructs for design patterns we already see embedded in JavaScript
> > libraries, development frameworks, Web site authoring tools, content
> > management systems, etc. We should also be on a constant vigil,
> searching
> > for new content constructs, page controls and information delivery
> systems
> > that appear in the wild, which fall outside of the design patterns we
> > already got in our vetted inventory of advance page components.
> >
> > Oh yeah, and by the way, let's make the software manufacturers aware of
> > and obligated to honor the vetted and approved content implementation
> > techniques so that they can build their software, including operating
> > systems, browsers / user agents, and assistive technology to support
> > content owners who responsibly follow coding examples provided in the
> > sufficient techniques. I know, I know - nobody wants to get bogged down
> in
> > technology-centric standards. That's why, in my opinion, we need keep
> and
> > cherish the generalized normative standards that work so well for WCAG
> 2.0,
> > but also significantly expand upon the informative sufficient techniques
> > with real world examples of how fancy Web page gizmos should be coded to
> > spec. That way the software manufacturer programs can parse the site
> /app
> > code properly, following their own regulated set of specifications, thus
> > enabling access to end users with disabilities.
> >
> > Anybody agree or disagree?
> >
> > If there is anyone on this list that who is responsible in whole or in
> > part for actively excluding software manufacturers from obligations under
> > the proposed ADA update (recent ADA SANPRM), I would genuinely value an
> > explanation for why you believe exclusion of these integral parties makes
> > sense. If I don't hear back on this issue as a response on this thread,
> > I'll ask the question again later in a separate post.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Brooks Newton
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >