WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: holding software vendors accountable for accessibility

for

From: Jennifer Sutton
Date: Sep 14, 2016 8:26AM

All:


Steve and Patrick, thank you for bringing focus back to the very
specific moment, today, for browsers and AT vendors. It was my goal to
take the historic long view, here, based on my recollections of Brooks'
previous comments of software vendors, more generally. We have had these
same discussions more times than I can count (beyyond browsers and AT),
so I was hoping to work for new kinds of change.


But since WebAIM seems to be down for me, such that I can't confirm my
recollection by searching the archives to offer citations, I guess what
you two have said is all that need be said, unless others are interested
in discussing the general subject further.


Good luck to everyone in making the change we wish to see, wherever and
however we can.


Jennifer



On 9/14/2016 1:25 AM, Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
> And to specifically address the issue with how inconsistently/badly
> browsers have handled the "keyboard focus should move when following
> an in-page link", the crux of the problem was that nothing had ever
> been officially specified in any specification, and browsers had to
> make up their own interpretation of what should happen.
>
> Finally, the correct/expected behavior has now been properly
> documented
> https://www.w3.org/TR/html51/editing.html#sec-sequential-focus-navigation
> (thanks to the hard work of people working on specs, including browser
> vendors), so browsers have a well-documented behavior that they can
> consistently implement (see for instance the recent change in Chrome's
> behavior
> https://developers.google.com/web/updates/2016/03/focus-start-point?hl=en).
>
> P
>
> On 14/09/2016 09:01, Steve Faulkner wrote:
>> Brook appears to point to browser vendors as the issue, in my experience
>> browser vendors are the bright light in accessibility implementation
>> on the
>> web, they provide an open process for filing bugs and implement
>> standards.
>> It is mostly the Assistive tech vendors that are a problem as they do
>> not
>> generally have an open development process and do not participate in the
>> development of standards.
>>
>> --
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> SteveF
>> Current Standards Work @W3C
>> <http://www.paciellogroup.com/blog/2015/03/current-standards-work-at-w3c/>;
>>
>>