WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: holding software vendors accountable for accessibility

for

From: Birkir R. Gunnarsson
Date: Sep 15, 2016 7:05AM

Great thread people, this is so true.
The problem with accessible web content is also its greatest strength,
it is constantly evolving, and we make sure that you don't require a
PHD in rocket science to put your content out on the web, but if that
content is to be made accessible all the players in the chain, from
the software you use to author your content to the assistive
technology that translates it into information most suitable for the
end users does its part and, yes, where is the end user in all this?
I don't know how many times I received complaints from NVDA users when
I used a modal popup dialog and NVDA was stuck in forms mode.
The users just did not know that pressing NVDA-spacebar turned the mode off.
The bug has been sitting with NVDA for years and either has not been
fixed yet, or they think it isn't a bug but a "feature" (note, not
verified for 2016.3).
And NVDA are great, responsive, and do an incredible job (just so
people know Iam not singling them out, they are just an easy target
because they do the right thing and make their bug tracking system
public).
I don't have the answers either, other than just continuing to file
bugs when they are encountered and working on the ARIA Authroing
Practices guide to make ARIA easier to understand and use.
I still think we have come a longway from the days of DHTML and Flash,
let's not forget it, but there is an even longer road ahead.




On 9/15/16, Jamous, JP < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:
> Sorry Jim. I am not following you. Can you word your question differently?
>
> Which bug and what rollout?
>
>
>
>
> **************************************************
>
> Jean-Pierre Jamous
> Digital Accessibility Specialist & Developer
> UI Accessibility Team
>
> SME for EBN Include
> Digital Accessibility Specialist & Blind and Visually Impaired Expert
>
> The only limitations in life are those we set for ourselves
>
> **************************************************
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: WebAIM-Forum [mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> ] On Behalf
> Of Jim Homme
> Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2016 6:18 PM
> To: WebAIM Discussion List < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
> Subject: Re: [WebAIM] holding software vendors accountable for
> accessibility
>
> Hi,
> Keeping this bug in mind, where is there documentation on rolling back and
> its iimplications?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Jim
>
>
> =========> Jim Homme,
> Accessibility Consultant,
> Bender HighTest Accessibility Team
> Bender Consulting Services, Inc.,
> 412-787-8567,
> <EMAIL REMOVED>
> http://www.benderconsult.com/our%20services/hightest-accessible-technology-solutions
> E+R=O
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: WebAIM-Forum [mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> ] On Behalf
> Of Jamous, JP
> Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2016 5:07 PM
> To: WebAIM Discussion List < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
> Subject: Re: [WebAIM] holding software vendors accountable for
> accessibility
>
> FYI, I second this whole thread. What we need is action. We need to enforce
> the fact that JAWS stands for Job Access with Speech. If they cannot live up
> to that title, then they should rename it.
>
> I use Visual Studio to program web sites and other types of apps. As Visual
> Studio 2015 came out, there was a smiley face icon in the help menu. I
> noticed that the log-in form was totally inaccessible for me to make Visual
> Studio 2015 Community fully licensed as my counterparts.
>
> I sent a sad face and explained the issue to Microsoft. As they deployed
> service pack 5, the issue was fixed. So yes, one person can make a
> difference and multiple ones can make a bigger difference.
>
> We need to team up and submit our issues to those venders starting with the
> AT ones.
>
> I already have various JAWS bugs that have been tested and logged. I also
> have ones for VoiceOver 9.3.5 and I need a group of people to email the
> venders after I file the issues to enforce the change.
>
> FYI, do not upgrade to iOS 10 as VoiceOver is not reading any aria
> attributes. That's a prime example of their failures.
>
>
>
>
> **************************************************
>
> Jean-Pierre Jamous
> Digital Accessibility Specialist & Developer UI Accessibility Team
>
> SME for EBN Include
> Digital Accessibility Specialist & Blind and Visually Impaired Expert
>
> The only limitations in life are those we set for ourselves
>
> **************************************************
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: WebAIM-Forum [mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> ] On Behalf
> Of Don Mauck
> Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2016 3:53 PM
> To: <EMAIL REMOVED> ; WebAIM Discussion List
> < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
> Subject: Re: [WebAIM] holding software vendors accountable for
> accessibility
>
> Well written!!
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chagnon | PubCom [mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> ]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2016 2:44 PM
> To: WebAIM Discussion List < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
> Subject: Re: [WebAIM] holding software vendors accountable for
> accessibility
>
> Agree with Brooks.
> One of the key problems with the SANPRM (and all other regulations regarding
> accessibility) is that it doesn't address the entire scope of how electronic
> information is created, published, and presented to the user.
>
> Doesn't matter whether it's HTML or a PDF on a website, the problem is the
> same; the end product isn't necessarily fully accessible and sometimes it's
> the software that's missing the grade, not our content.
>
> There are 5 stakeholders in accessibility:
>
> 1. The assistive technologies, browsers, and their manufacturers. Are they
> developing tools that keep up with the WCAG and PDF/UA standards?
>
> 2. Us, the content creators. Are we making our materials per the WCAG and
> PDF/UA standards?
>
> 3. The standards themselves. They are difficult and confusing to understand
> (I type this as I'm closing up my classroom from teaching accessibility for
> 3 days). Can they be simplified and still make our work accessible? Can they
> be written and presented to mere mortals (the content creators, not
> programmers) in a way that they can understand them and use them?
>
> 4. The software manufacturers. Here, I mean the software we content
> creators use to create content, namely: Microsoft Word and PowerPoint, Adobe
> InDesign, and Adobe Acrobat. 18 years after Sec. 508 was passed, and MS Word
> still can't output a compliant PDF. Nor can Adobe InDesign. And Acrobat?
> Don't get me started. And do we have an HTML authoring tools that help us
> make accessible websites?
>
> 5. The end users. Do they have the latest version of their assistive
> technology? Have they taken training in how to use it or read the manual?
>
> I get the sense that DOJ doesn't really know the extent of the problem, so
> I'm glad Books and others have filed their comments. Don't leave out the AT
> manufacturers, nor Adobe or Microsoft. They are critical links in the entire
> accessibility workflow and should be cited in the proposed regulation.
>
> --Bevi Chagnon
>
> — — —
> Bevi Chagnon | www.PubCom.com
> Technologists, Consultants, Trainers, Designers, and Developers for
> publishing & communication
> | Acrobat PDF | Print | EPUBS | Sec. 508 Accessibility |
> — — —
>
> > > http://webaim.org/discussion/archives
> > > > http://webaim.org/discussion/archives
> > > > http://webaim.org/discussion/archives
> > > > http://webaim.org/discussion/archives
> > > > > >


--
Work hard. Have fun. Make history.