E-mail List Archives

Search E-mail List Archives for

Number of posts in this thread: 6 (In chronological order)

From: megha patangi
Date: Wed, Dec 21 2022 4:52AM
Subject: WebAIM-Forum Digest, Vol 213, Issue 22
No previous message | Next message →

Hi Glen,

Thank you for your responses and definitely they gave a bit of clarity to me.

Answering to your questions:
Yes grid is like a spreadsheet which user can edit and so we needed role="grid".

With respect to answer 1:
I liked the answer for row number, as screen reader already announces
the row number and now if we give custom label to it, then it might be
redundant announcement and there can be chances that default render
versus custom render may not match.
And yes the first column containing radio button/ checkbox has column
header, both visual and associated for screen reader.
Thus, you recommend that individual label to these controls in each
cell is not required?

With respect to answer 2:
Using keyboard a user cannot navigate using left/ right arrow keys
inside cell to read character by character as we haven't enabled those
keys to navigate when focus is inside the cell as they were bringing
other complications to our table, as developers can author any sort of
data type inside the cell.
this actually added to complexity and we had to go with modal approach.
Actually for list of links inside a cell, where there are more than
three for all users it will open modal. Just in use cases of till 3
link list we have different interaction for keyboard users in modal.

With respect to answer 3:
yes user can tab to interactive element present just after table. New
data appears only on clicking down arrow within the table, from last
row.

Regards,
Megha





On 12/21/22, = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> Send WebAIM-Forum mailing list submissions to
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://list.webaim.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/webaim-forum
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of WebAIM-Forum digest..."
>

From: Saravanan K
Date: Tue, Jan 03 2023 4:26PM
Subject: Re: WebAIM-Forum Digest, Vol 214, Issue 1
← Previous message | Next message →

Dear Moderator,
Please unsubscribe me from this list.

On 1/4/23, = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> Send WebAIM-Forum mailing list submissions to
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://list.webaim.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/webaim-forum
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of WebAIM-Forum digest..."
>

From: Artem Sergeevich Akopyan
Date: Thu, Feb 02 2023 12:30PM
Subject: Re: WebAIM-Forum Digest, Vol 200, Issue 10
← Previous message | Next message →

why are we still on WCAG 2.1?

On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 2:00 PM < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
wrote:

> Send WebAIM-Forum mailing list submissions to
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://list.webaim.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/webaim-forum
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of WebAIM-Forum digest..."
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. WCAG 1.4.4 Resizing Text and Zoom (Alan Zaitchik)
> 2. Re: WCAG 1.4.4 Resizing Text and Zoom (glen walker)
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Alan Zaitchik < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> Cc:
> Bcc:
> Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2021 20:51:48 -0500
> Subject: [WebAIM] WCAG 1.4.4 Resizing Text and Zoom
> This is really long. I apologize, but I wanted to expose the reasoning
> behind my question.
>
> My question concerns WCAG 1.4.4 (“Resize Text”), viz. whether it is enough
> to test with browser zoom or must one test with setting font size to 200%
> the system default or medium font size. This problem is acute for one of
> our applications where we (alas) inherited dependence on a third-party
> software package that builds grids into which we stream data; these grids
> do not adequately resize to accommodate resized text, although they work
> just fine with browser zoom.
> Reading through the WCAG materials I find a certain ambiguity regarding
> the satisfaction conditions for 1.4.4. On the one hand “Understanding
> Success Criterion 1.4.4: Resize text” (
> https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Understanding/resize-text.html) says:
> The scaling of content is primarily a user agent responsibility. User
> agents that satisfy UAAG 1.0 Checkpoint 4.1 allow users to configure text
> scale. The author's responsibility is to create Web content that does not
> prevent the user agent from scaling the content effectively.
> That seems to say that where the user agent has a mechanism to scale
> content the author’s responsibility is simply not to prevent the user agent
> mechanism from working. Zoom scales content, and our code does not prevent
> that. So arguably we’re ok.
>
> But read on…
>
> … The author cannot rely on the user agent to satisfy this Success
> Criterion for HTML content if users do not have access to a user agent with
> zoom support. For example, if they work in an environment that requires
> them to use IE 6.
>
> If the author is using a technology whose user agents do not provide zoom
> support, the author is responsible to provide this type of functionality
> directly or to provide content that works with the type of functionality
> provided by the user agent.
>
> Can we rely on the user agent zoom where the browser does have zoom? We
> support only recent browsers, all of which support zoom. IE 6 is definitely
> not our concern. Again, it could be argued that we are ok relying on zoom.
> But surely some users might not use zoom or even know of its possibility!
> So perhaps we cannot rely on it.
>
> Now for a statement that seems very clear.
>
> Technique G142 “Using a technology that has commonly-available user agents
> that support zoom” for SC 1.4.4 (
> https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Techniques/general/G142.html) explicitly
> states:
> The objective of this technique is to ensure content can be scaled
> uniformly by using a Web technology supported by user agents that change
> text size via a Zoom tool.
>
> Content authored in technologies that are supported by user agents that
> can scale content uniformly (that is, zoom into content) satisfy this
> Success Criterion.
>
> The examples given are IE 7 and Adobe Reader zoom or magnification tools.
> What could be more explicit than that?
>
> And yet … Many (most?) people with vision disabilities do set their font
> size larger at the system level and do not use browser zoom, even when it
> is available. So even if browser-delivered content could be zoomed is it
> appropriate to require users to do so where rescaling font size fails to
> keep all content available? It could certainly be argued that the spirit of
> 1.4.4 is not respected for users chancing upon pages where their normally
> rescaled text suddenly is illegible, and an additional action is required
> of them. On mobile devices some users will have great difficulty with
> pinching to zoom.
>
> What is your practice regarding this Satisfaction Condition? In your
> experience is zoom or text resizing the dominant method by which users with
> impaired vision enlarge text?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Alan
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: glen walker < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> To: WebAIM Discussion List < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Cc:
> Bcc:
> Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2021 08:41:42 -0700
> Subject: Re: [WebAIM] WCAG 1.4.4 Resizing Text and Zoom
> I test with ctrl++ or cmd++ in the browser and see how the content reacts.
> 1.4.4 says there should be no loss of "content or functionality". 1.4.4
> does not say that you (the page author) must provide a way to scale the
> text. That is, you don't need to provide a "font increase" button if the
> browser doesn't support ctrl++.
>
> You could also test 1.4.4 by using the browser's font settings but that's
> more work. Using ctrl++ is faster and easier but 1.4.4 doesn't tell you
> how you should test it.
>
> > > > >

From: Patrick H. Lauke
Date: Thu, Feb 02 2023 2:14PM
Subject: Re: WebAIM-Forum Digest, Vol 200, Issue 10
← Previous message | Next message →

On 02/02/2023 19:30, Artem Sergeevich Akopyan wrote:
> why are we still on WCAG 2.1?

1) because 2.2 is still not finalised
2) even when it is, it will be a few more years until actual legislation
references it (for fun, Section 508 in the US still references WCAG 2.0)
3) just like 2.1, 2.2 extends the previous spec ... so (with the
exception of 4.1.1 which will be deprectated in 2.2) any SC currently in
2.1 will still be part of 2.2

Hope that helps ;)

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

From: Patrick H. Lauke
Date: Thu, Feb 02 2023 2:15PM
Subject: Re: WebAIM-Forum Digest, Vol 200, Issue 10
← Previous message | Next message →

On 02/02/2023 21:14, Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
> On 02/02/2023 19:30, Artem Sergeevich Akopyan wrote:
>> why are we still on WCAG 2.1?
>
> 1) because 2.2 is still not finalised
> 2) even when it is, it will be a few more years until actual legislation
> references it (for fun, Section 508 in the US still references WCAG 2.0)
> 3) just like 2.1, 2.2 extends the previous spec ... so (with the
> exception of 4.1.1 which will be deprectated in 2.2) any SC currently in
> 2.1 will still be part of 2.2

Oh, and for completeness: WCAG 3 is currently only an idea, and nothing
more...

--
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

From: chagnon@pubcom.com
Date: Thu, Feb 02 2023 3:19PM
Subject: Re: WebAIM-Forum Digest, Vol 200, Issue 10
← Previous message | No next message

Thanks to Patrick Lauke for that great explanation.
As a colleague said a few years back, it takes years to write and update a standard.

Then it takes about a year or longer for it to be reviewed and approved for public publishing, which can involve the ISO formally publishing it.

And then it takes 1-2 years (or even longer) for governments to review the new standard and propose new legislation or updates that reference it.

And then, it takes a year or longer for our software tools and assistive technologies to retool to the new standard.

From my experience on the PDF/UA ISO committees (and even way back as a contributor to the original WCAG committee), it's about 5-7 years for the entire process to unfold. If all goes well! Look at how long it took the US to update Section 508 — from 1998 to 2017, 18 years!

Recommendation:
1. Meet at least the standard required by law, WCAG 2.0.
2. When appropriate, go beyond and meet WCAG 2.1. But that's voluntary. Nice to do, but not required by law yet — US law, that is.
3. Avoid "jumping the gun" and following standards that haven't yet been completed, like WCAG 2.2. As a member of a standards-writing committee, I'm amazed at how much changes while we develop new standards over a few years. And most software and assistive technologies won't retool to vapor-ware standards until they are carved in stone and finalized.

— — —
Bevi Chagnon | Designer, Accessibility Technician | = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
— — —
PubCom: Technologists for Accessible Design + Publishing
consulting • training • development • design • sec. 508 services
Upcoming classes at www.PubCom.com/classes
— — —
Latest blog-newsletter – Simple Guide to Writing Alt-Text

-----Original Message-----
From: WebAIM-Forum < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > On Behalf Of Patrick H. Lauke
Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2023 4:16 PM
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] WebAIM-Forum Digest, Vol 200, Issue 10

On 02/02/2023 21:14, Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
> On 02/02/2023 19:30, Artem Sergeevich Akopyan wrote:
>> why are we still on WCAG 2.1?
>
> 1) because 2.2 is still not finalised
> 2) even when it is, it will be a few more years until actual
> legislation references it (for fun, Section 508 in the US still
> references WCAG 2.0)
> 3) just like 2.1, 2.2 extends the previous spec ... so (with the
> exception of 4.1.1 which will be deprectated in 2.2) any SC currently
> in
> 2.1 will still be part of 2.2

Oh, and for completeness: WCAG 3 is currently only an idea, and nothing more...

--
Patrick H. Lauke