WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: WCAG - Fail or not to - Static text tab-focusable in tables


From: Steve Green
Date: Jan 1, 2021 10:30AM

I'm with Patrick on this one. If you have been asked to audit a website for conformance with WCAG 2.1 AA, then that's what you should do. You should not invent "missing" success criteria. After all, you are not reporting non-conformances with any of the numerous level AAA success criteria, so why should you report anything else that is not included in level A and AA?

If you have been asked to do an "accessibility audit" or an "expert review", then you can invent all the success criteria you like. But a "WCAG audit" has a defined scope and you should stay within it.

You might think you're providing added value, but my experience is that stakeholders do not welcome it. In the vast majority of cases, we find that clients only fix what they have to fix i.e. the level A and AA non-conformances. They don't want to know about anything outside of that.

Of course there are exceptions where clients really care about the user experience, so your context is important in determining what you do and don't report. But that decision should be driven by what your stakeholders want, not your personal biases.

Steve Green
Managing Director
Test Partners Ltd

-----Original Message-----
From: WebAIM-Forum < <EMAIL REMOVED> > On Behalf Of Birkir R. Gunnarsson
Sent: 01 January 2021 04:30
To: WebAIM Discussion List < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] WCAG - Fail or not to - Static text tab-focusable in tables

That's why I do it very rarely, and only in cases where I believe there's an honest and major fail for certain users with disabilities, e.g. keyboard only users. In those cases I back the opinion up with a documented explanation, sometimes accompanied by a test page or video.

WCAG does not cover all major accessibility/usability fails. More often, the success criteria are vague or open ended enough to require interpretation or context. While adherence to a standard is good; having standards is absolutely necessary; but usability for the largest possible group of people is what ultimately makes a difference.

At the end of the day (or year), accessibility is making sure people with differing abilities can use your website/mobile app/digital platform. I am willing to stake my reputation on that stance. So far it's not been called into question frequently.

On 12/31/20, Patrick H. Lauke < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:
> On 31/12/2020 16:42, Birkir R. Gunnarsson wrote:
>> I guess it's the luxury of working with one program ;) I can use the
>> "Birkir says it's a fail" without having to exercise WCAG gymnastics.
> A counterpoint, of course, is that in the worst case you're just
> making stuff up and saying it fails WCAG, which does the client (and
> your
> reputation) a disservice...
> P
> --
> Patrick H. Lauke
> https://www.splintered.co.uk/ | https://github.com/patrickhlauke
> https://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | https://www.deviantart.com/redux
> twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
> > > archives at http://webaim.org/discussion/archives
> >

Work hard. Have fun. Make history.