E-mail List Archives

Search E-mail List Archives for

Number of posts in this thread: 9 (In chronological order)

From: Kakarla Meharoon
Date: Mon, Apr 16 2018 4:06AM
Subject: JAWS issue for mandatory fields
No previous message | Next message →

Hi,

JAWS does not recognize the required field (*) in IE browser. If * is coded
using Pseudo elements.

But i checked in Chrome and FF * is read by JAWS but in IE browser only its
not reading while tabbing as well as arrow key navigation.

From: Steve Faulkner
Date: Mon, Apr 16 2018 4:17AM
Subject: Re: JAWS issue for mandatory fields
← Previous message | Next message →

IE does not expose CSS before:/after: content in the accessibility tree,
other browsers do, which is why you are experiencing the difference. Use of
CSS to indicate state is not a robust method.

Suggest using aria-required="true" as this exposes the state in
accessibility APIs.
https://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria-1.1/#aria-required



--

Regards

SteveF
Current Standards Work @W3C
<http://www.paciellogroup.com/blog/2015/03/current-standards-work-at-w3c/>;

On 16 April 2018 at 11:06, Kakarla Meharoon < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> JAWS does not recognize the required field (*) in IE browser. If * is coded
> using Pseudo elements.
>
> But i checked in Chrome and FF * is read by JAWS but in IE browser only its
> not reading while tabbing as well as arrow key navigation.
> > > > >

From: Steve Green
Date: Mon, Apr 16 2018 5:05AM
Subject: Re: JAWS issue for mandatory fields
← Previous message | Next message →

Which browsers are behaving correctly in respect of this? And is there any indication the others intend to fix their behaviour?

I find that developers are very keen on this technique for some reason, and there are often no ARIA attributes for the information they want to convey.

Steve

From: Steve Faulkner
Date: Mon, Apr 16 2018 5:12AM
Subject: Re: JAWS issue for mandatory fields
← Previous message | Next message →

> And is there any indication the others intend to fix their behaviour?

There is zero chance that IE11 will be fixed as it is dead except for
security updates

--

Regards

SteveF
Current Standards Work @W3C
<http://www.paciellogroup.com/blog/2015/03/current-standards-work-at-w3c/>;

On 16 April 2018 at 12:05, Steve Green < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
wrote:

> Which browsers are behaving correctly in respect of this? And is there any
> indication the others intend to fix their behaviour?
>
> I find that developers are very keen on this technique for some reason,
> and there are often no ARIA attributes for the information they want to
> convey.
>
> Steve
>
>

From: Steve Green
Date: Mon, Apr 16 2018 5:17AM
Subject: Re: JAWS issue for mandatory fields
← Previous message | Next message →

I can't find a specification anywhere that says what the behaviour should be. My instinct is that Internet Explorer is right and the others are wrong - CSS content is an oxymoron and it feels so wrong. How did it ever get into the CSS spec?

Steve

From: Patrick H. Lauke
Date: Mon, Apr 16 2018 5:21AM
Subject: Re: JAWS issue for mandatory fields
← Previous message | Next message →

On 16/04/2018 12:17, Steve Green wrote:
> I can't find a specification anywhere that says what the behaviour should be. My instinct is that Internet Explorer is right and the others are wrong - CSS content is an oxymoron and it feels so wrong. How did it ever get into the CSS spec?

There is no spec that authoritatively says "this is what a user agent
should expose in its accessibility tree".

With that said: lots of authors started using CSS-generated content.
User agents and AT decided to expose this to their users.

It's a bit late NOW, years after they've all been consistently doing it,
to say "I think all browsers are wrong here". Again, because so many
sites rely on it in the wild.

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

From: Birkir R. Gunnarsson
Date: Mon, Apr 16 2018 5:52AM
Subject: Re: JAWS issue for mandatory fields
← Previous message | Next message →

The Accessible name and description computation spec refers to
including cSS generated content:
https://www.w3.org/TR/accname-1.1/
(search for "CSS gen" or "example 3".
I think there is value in being able to add content to CSS classes,
e.g. to consistently indicate when something is a PDF file or a secure
link etc. I also admit that blurring the lines between styling and
content can lead to problems.



On 4/16/18, Patrick H. Lauke < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> On 16/04/2018 12:17, Steve Green wrote:
>> I can't find a specification anywhere that says what the behaviour should
>> be. My instinct is that Internet Explorer is right and the others are
>> wrong - CSS content is an oxymoron and it feels so wrong. How did it ever
>> get into the CSS spec?
>
> There is no spec that authoritatively says "this is what a user agent
> should expose in its accessibility tree".
>
> With that said: lots of authors started using CSS-generated content.
> User agents and AT decided to expose this to their users.
>
> It's a bit late NOW, years after they've all been consistently doing it,
> to say "I think all browsers are wrong here". Again, because so many
> sites rely on it in the wild.
>
> 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
> > > > >


--
Work hard. Have fun. Make history.

From: Patrick H. Lauke
Date: Mon, Apr 16 2018 7:31AM
Subject: Re: JAWS issue for mandatory fields
← Previous message | Next message →

On 16/04/2018 12:52, Birkir R. Gunnarsson wrote:
> The Accessible name and description computation spec refers to
> including cSS generated content:
> https://www.w3.org/TR/accname-1.1/
> (search for "CSS gen" or "example 3".

Ah, good catch. I was thinking more broadly about an accessibility tree
spec, and forgot this more focused one about name/description.

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

From: glen walker
Date: Mon, Apr 16 2018 1:12PM
Subject: Re: JAWS issue for mandatory fields
← Previous message | No next message

Birkir beat me to it. Here's the specific link to the accessible name
generation spec regarding CSS:

https://www.w3.org/TR/accname-1.1/#step2F.ii

Step 2.F.ii shows the CSS content being used.

Good question, Kakarla.


On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 7:31 AM, Patrick H. Lauke < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
wrote:

> On 16/04/2018 12:52, Birkir R. Gunnarsson wrote:
>
>> The Accessible name and description computation spec refers to
>> including cSS generated content:
>> https://www.w3.org/TR/accname-1.1/
>> (search for "CSS gen" or "example 3".
>>
>
> Ah, good catch. I was thinking more broadly about an accessibility tree
> spec, and forgot this more focused one about name/description.
>
>
> 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
> > > > >