WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: Accessibility training and scanning solutions providers

for

From: Birkir R. Gunnarsson
Date: Dec 17, 2016 12:42PM

Well, at the end of the day it is all about whether the user can have
an accessible experience (ideally not just accessible, but also
usable).
That all comes down to how the website is designed and only partially
down to how it is coded.
I think e.g. that dynamic forms are a very good user experience if
done corectly.
By dynamic I mean forms that show you information and fields based on
your selections.
Imagine a set of radiobuttons. For each radiobutton you choose you'd
get a different set of form fields.
A poorly static html page would show you all of the fields for all
choices. Even if this form were perfectly marked up for accessibility
it would be cumbersome and confusing to fill in.
A dynamic form that only displays the info you need to fill in as you
select a radiobutton provides amuch better user experience, but it
requires CSS/JavaScript to make it happen.
Basically, if people avoid unnecessarily using ARIA and JavaScript and
use the HTML element most appropriate for the purpose, I am happy.
HTmL does not have all the answers (dynamic forms, live regions, tab
and menu constructs, modal dialogs, auto complete searches cannot be
implemented with HTML alone, HTML5 is moving us closer but we're still
far off).
People who build custom elements as a rule always get themselves in
trouble, because they don't understand all the nuances and
complexities of assistive technologies. Even if they do, the browsers
and a.t. themselves do not always know how to interpret the markup.
But people who think of JavaScript/ARIA as inherently inaccessible an
evil, and believe the web should still be coded using HTmL only are
not providing the users with the best experience

It's all about the the situation, the content and the desired user experience.



On 12/17/16, L Snider < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:
> Hi Birkir,
>
> What has been your experience if the DOM passes, but the HTML has been a
> mess, in terms of user testing? I have seen people do what you suggested,
> basically layer over the html, but I always wondered how people found it in
> terms of accessibility, and not just a checker saying it is okay. If that
> makes sense?
>
> For me, I want the DOM and HTML to be accessible, as much as possible. but
> I found others I have met in the past few years don't always share that
> view-and they rely on the DOM to fix the issues, when if they just worked
> on the HTML...well you can see where I am going with this!
>
> Cheers
>
> Lisa
>
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 12:03 PM, Birkir R. Gunnarsson <
> <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:
>
>> Karl Groves set up the provocatively named but brilliant
>> http://www.mothereffingtoolconfuser.com
>> This is a webpage whose HTML source code has a number of accessibility
>> issues, all of which are fixed with JQuery that runs on page load.
>> So the HTML source has a bunch of issues, the DOM should have 0.
>> If a tool reports a bunch of errors on this page, either it tested the
>> HTML source, or there is something happening with JavaScript not
>> running (I have seen it happen when trying to test this page from
>> behind a corporate firewall).
>> But if the tool reports 0 errors, it is testing the DOM.
>> I had a SiteImprove tech guy test this page for me (in SiteImprove you
>> cannot test a random page yourself,only the domain you have access
>> to). He said it returned 0 errors, Based on that info they test the
>> DOM.
>>
>> -B
>>
>>
>> On 12/16/16, Sean Keegan < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:
>> > Hi Peter,
>> >
>> > Have you verified with SiteImprove that the tool does not check the DOM?
>> I
>> > raised this question with two different technical people at SiteImprove
>> > several months ago and both said the tool is evaluating the DOM, not the
>> > source code.
>> >
>> > Take care,
>> > Sean
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> >> From: "Bossley, Peter A." < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
>> >> To: WebAIM Discussion List < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
>> >> Cc:
>> >> Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 19:16:11 +0000
>> >> Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Accessibility training and scanning solutions
>> >> providers
>> >> Siteimprove doesn't appear to actually test the DOM, so I bounced them
>> off
>> >> the list for that one alone.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> > >> > >> > >> > >> >
>>
>>
>> --
>> Work hard. Have fun. Make history.
>> >> >> >> >>
> > > > >


--
Work hard. Have fun. Make history.