WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: 1.4.3 & 2.4.7: evaluation while blind


From: Steve Green
Date: Sep 18, 2019 6:53AM

I'm afraid I've got to disagree with most of that, Birkir,

You are misunderstanding what 1.3.1 says. It does not say anything about what the heading structure should be. It says that if something visually looks like a heading, it should be marked up as a heading. Visual relationships and information must be conveyed programmatically. The starting point for this is what the content looks like, and you must be able to determine the author's intent. If you can't see it, you can't do that in many cases. I agree that if you can perceive a data table, then you can tell if it is marked up correctly. But if tabular content is marked-up using div or span elements, you may not be able to tell that it should be a table.

1.3.2 is not about a logical content order. It is about identifying the correct content order, which may not be the same. The programmatic content order may well seem logical, yet be incorrect.

I don't want to appear to be the bad guy picking on blind people, but whenever this topic comes up I find that people ignore all the stuff they can't do. It may well be that this is because they simply cannot perceive all those things, so the task of testing appears simpler than it actually is. Depending on what you are testing, it can be extremely difficult even if you are fully able.


-----Original Message-----
From: WebAIM-Forum < <EMAIL REMOVED> > On Behalf Of Birkir R. Gunnarsson
Sent: 18 September 2019 13:23
To: WebAIM Discussion List < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] 1.4.3 & 2.4.7: evaluation while blind

1.3.1 is typically fairly perceivable. A line of text that marks the start of a section should be a heading, If you read the page in context you can typically detect what the heading structure should be.
you can detect table markup issues fairly easily just from the content,
1.3.2 is all about logical content order so it's more easily detectable using a screen reader in fact (the requirement is that it is logical, not necessarily that it matches visual order, though preferred).
1.4.1 is tricky but you can typically see that from class names, and you can use a Jaws scripts to display class names for any element you can reach in browse mode, not just keyboard focusable). I still always verify that with a pair of eyes.
I should write an article on this, been meaning to for ages.

On 9/18/19, Patrick H. Lauke < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:
> On 18/09/2019 12:30, Steve Green wrote:
>> I don't see how a blind person can test several others, such as 1.3.1
>> Info and Relationships. That SC requires you to assess the visual
>> presentation and check if the information and relationships are
>> conveyed programmatically. How can you do that if you can't see it?
>> There are others like 1.3.2 Meaningful Sequence. If you can only
>> perceive the programmatic reading sequence and not the visual
>> sequence, how can you tell if it is correct?
>> And 1.4.1 Use of Colour. How can you tell if colour alone is being used?
>> It might be possible by analysing the styles, but that won't work if
>> the colour is in images.
>> I won't labour the point, but if you can't perceive something, how
>> can you know if there is anything to perceive?
> Oh, absolutely. Sorry, wasn't trying to make an exhaustive list :)
> P
> --
> Patrick H. Lauke
> www.splintered.co.uk | https://github.com/patrickhlauke
> http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | http://redux.deviantart.com
> twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
> > > archives at http://webaim.org/discussion/archives
> >

Work hard. Have fun. Make history.