WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: Accessibility training and scanning solutions providers

for

From: Birkir R. Gunnarsson
Date: Dec 19, 2016 8:00AM

*grin*


On 12/19/16, Lovely, Brian (CONT) < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:
> Thanks for this Birkir. After reading this blog post no one will pass
> non-unique IDs, not will they lend you their laptop! :)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: WebAIM-Forum [mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> ] On Behalf
> Of Birkir R. Gunnarsson
> Sent: Monday, December 19, 2016 9:23 AM
> To: WebAIM Discussion List < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
> Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Accessibility training and scanning solutions
> providers
>
> When I was with Deque I wrote a blog on why unique ID ttributes matter
> (based on a real case working with a real client).
> http://www.deque.com/blog/unique-id-attributes-matter/
>
>
>
> On 12/19/16, Lovely, Brian (CONT) < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:
>> The only time I would pass non-unique IDs is if the page is responsive
>> and there is (for instance) the same header ID for desktop and mobile
>> view but one is always hidden. Otherwise, it's not just bad coding but
>> it can interfere with constructing the DOM or the accessible DOM.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: WebAIM-Forum [mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> ] On
>> Behalf Of JP Jamous
>> Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2016 5:29 PM
>> To: 'WebAIM Discussion List' < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
>> Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Accessibility training and scanning solutions
>> providers
>>
>> Yeah and sometimes they flag elements with the same IDs when execution
>> wise, those similar IDs would not cause an issue.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: WebAIM-Forum [mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> ] On
>> Behalf Of Birkir R. Gunnarsson
>> Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2016 2:51 PM
>> To: WebAIM Discussion List < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
>> Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Accessibility training and scanning solutions
>> providers
>>
>> I don´t like checkers that automatically flag use of ARIA as a failure
>> and stop checking. I see this in quite a few checkers.
>> The checkers need to understand ARIA and check if ARIA is being used
>> according to spec (because correctly used ARIA can imporve the user
>> experience, and it is a fully valid coding technique according to a
>> W3C standard).
>>
>> I am fine with checkers flagging a warning that HTML has an element
>> that can do the same, but it shouldn´t be flagged as an error.
>>
>>
>> On 12/17/16, JP Jamous < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:
>>> I second Birkir on this one. I deal on daily bases with old code
>>> dated back to 2005.
>>>
>>> I butt heads with UX teams because they get their analytics and they
>>> have zero information about people with ATs. That is why I trying to
>>> make changes to ensure we have the best user experience on our site.
>>>
>>> Being a software and web developer in the past, I don't rely much on
>>> automated checkers. I want to test drive that sucker myself and get
>>> the user experience. Even iOS and Android emulators I try to stay
>>> away from. I want the actual device and I want to be on a fully
>>> opened network rather behind a proxy firewall.
>>>
>>> All of the above, I learned that they can block what the customer
>>> experiences during a session. I want to be in that person's shoe
>>> despite the disability and get a feel for what is happening. I then
>>> do the automated checking.
>>>
>>> I know I am weird, but I want to achieve 2 things.
>>>
>>> 1. Is the site providing an accessible and positive user experience?
>>> 2. How can I prioritize my work and establish proper documentations
>>> for developers based on what I am experiencing so they can remedy the
>>> issues.
>>>
>>> If I am still getting some issues in the automated checker but the
>>> performance is excellent, then move on JP. That's how I like to
>>> approach those tasks. Relying on a program to make sense out of a pot
>>> of old, new and sloppy coding can frustrate the best decision maker.
>>> Of course, the checker will fail too many things.
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: WebAIM-Forum [mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> ] On
>>> Behalf Of Birkir R. Gunnarsson
>>> Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2016 1:43 PM
>>> To: WebAIM Discussion List < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
>>> Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Accessibility training and scanning solutions
>>> providers
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > archives at http://webaim.org/discussion/archives
>>>>> > >>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Work hard. Have fun. Make history.
>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> archives at http://webaim.org/discussion/archives
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>> >>>> archives at http://webaim.org/discussion/archives
>>>> >>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Work hard. Have fun. Make history.
>>> >>> >>> archives at http://webaim.org/discussion/archives
>>> >>>
>>> >>> >>> archives at http://webaim.org/discussion/archives
>>> >>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Work hard. Have fun. Make history.
>> >> >> archives at http://webaim.org/discussion/archives
>> >>
>> >> >> archives at http://webaim.org/discussion/archives
>> >> >>
>> The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and/or
>> proprietary to Capital One and/or its affiliates and may only be used
>> solely in performance of work or services for Capital One. The
>> information transmitted herewith is intended only for use by the
>> individual or entity to which it is addressed. If the reader of this
>> message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that
>> any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, copying or
>> other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this
>> information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
>> communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the material
>> from your computer.
>> >> >> archives at http://webaim.org/discussion/archives
>> >>
>
>
> --
> Work hard. Have fun. Make history.
> > > http://webaim.org/discussion/archives
> > >
> The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and/or proprietary
> to Capital One and/or its affiliates and may only be used solely in
> performance of work or services for Capital One. The information transmitted
> herewith is intended only for use by the individual or entity to which it is
> addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you
> are hereby notified that any review, retransmission, dissemination,
> distribution, copying or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance
> upon this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
> communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the material
> from your computer.
> > > > >


--
Work hard. Have fun. Make history.