E-mail List Archives

Search E-mail List Archives for

Number of posts in this thread: 13 (In chronological order)

From: Jim Byrne Accessible Web Design
Date: Fri, Aug 23 2024 3:39AM
Subject: Is using aria-label to add alternative text - but no alt attribute still a WCAG fail?
No previous message | Next message →

Hi,

I’m auditing a website that has many crucial image that do not have alt attributes. However, they all have aria-label. I see W3C says ‘"The alt attribute continues to be the preferred way to provide alternative text for images” - which is bit vague.

In the past having no alt attribute would have been a fail - on the standards validation test alone. But the validation test is deprecated. So - the missing alt attribute no longer a fail?

The ARIA docs say that Aria-label is designed to add additional information. I.e., not the primary information expected via the alt attribute.

I’m assuming that having no alt attribute on an image is still a fail - even if ARIA is used to provide the alternative text - and specifically using aria-label instead of the alt attribute. Am I correct?

Thanks,
Jim





Multi-award-winning WCAG 2.2 AA Accessibility Auditing and Accessibility Consultant

Web: https://jimbyrne.co.uk

Jim Byrne is one of the UK’s most experienced practitioners in the area of accessible digital design.

Jim provided feedback during the development of WCAG 2 (the de facto accessibility guidelines used by governments across the world). He is the author of a number of technical books, training courses and accessibility guides. Jim was a winner of the equal access category of the Global Bangemann Challenge.

From: Patrick H. Lauke
Date: Fri, Aug 23 2024 3:47AM
Subject: Re: Is using aria-label to add alternative text - but no alt attribute still a WCAG fail?
← Previous message | Next message →

On 23/08/2024 10:39, Jim Byrne Accessible Web Design wrote:
> I see W3C says ‘"The alt attribute continues to be the preferred way to provide alternative text for images” - which is bit vague.

Would be helpful to point to where this is said.

> The ARIA docs say that Aria-label is designed to add additional information. I.e., not the primary information expected via the alt attribute.

Where does it say that? looking at
https://w3c.github.io/aria/#aria-label it doesn't give me the impression
that it means "additional information", because that would be incorrect.
aria-label provides the accessible name for an element.

> I’m assuming that having no alt attribute on an image is still a fail - even if ARIA is used to provide the alternative text - and specifically using aria-label instead of the alt attribute. Am I correct?

aria-label provides the accessible name for an image, the same way alt
provides the accessible name. Unless I'm missing a nuance, the two end
up being identical and lead to the exact same end result.

--
Patrick H. Lauke

* https://www.splintered.co.uk/
* https://github.com/patrickhlauke
* https://flickr.com/photos/redux/
* https://mastodon.social/@patrick_h_lauke

From: Mark Magennis
Date: Fri, Aug 23 2024 3:49AM
Subject: Re: Is using aria-label to add alternative text - but no alt attribute still a WCAG fail?
← Previous message | Next message →

It's not a WCAG fail. It doesn't fail SC 1.1.1 Non-text Content if the aria-label provides a text alternative because that's all the SC requires. Is there any other SC you think it might fail?

Mark

From: WebAIM-Forum < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > on behalf of Jim Byrne Accessible Web Design < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Friday 23 August 2024 10:39
To: WebAIM Discussion List < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [WebAIM] Is using aria-label to add alternative text - but no alt attribute still a WCAG fail?

Hi,

I’m auditing a website that has many crucial image that do not have alt attributes. However, they all have aria-label. I see W3C says ‘"The alt attribute continues to be the preferred way to provide alternative text for images” - which is bit vague.

In the past having no alt attribute would have been a fail - on the standards validation test alone. But the validation test is deprecated. So - the missing alt attribute no longer a fail?

The ARIA docs say that Aria-label is designed to add additional information. I.e., not the primary information expected via the alt attribute.

I’m assuming that having no alt attribute on an image is still a fail - even if ARIA is used to provide the alternative text - and specifically using aria-label instead of the alt attribute. Am I correct?

Thanks,
Jim





Multi-award-winning WCAG 2.2 AA Accessibility Auditing and Accessibility Consultant

Web: https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fjimbyrne.co.uk%2F&data=05%7C02%7CMark.Magennis%40skillsoft.com%7C173a3bf1c186404f9c5f08dcc3578f03%7C50361608aa23494da2332fd14d6a03f4%7C0%7C0%7C638600028068587499%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=0mMBC9Tg34UpDzuqhhygw7Zfc3a6NskgLNK9TOoFKxY%3D&reserved=0<https://jimbyrne.co.uk/>

Jim Byrne is one of the UK’s most experienced practitioners in the area of accessible digital design.

Jim provided feedback during the development of WCAG 2 (the de facto accessibility guidelines used by governments across the world). He is the author of a number of technical books, training courses and accessibility guides. Jim was a winner of the equal access category of the Global Bangemann Challenge.

From: Birkir R. Gunnarsson
Date: Fri, Aug 23 2024 3:48AM
Subject: Re: Is using aria-label to add alternative text - but no alt attribute still a WCAG fail?
← Previous message | Next message →

aria-label has, I believe, full accessibility support on the <img> element
and is treated just like an alt attribute would be, i.e. it is announced
when a user navigates to the image. In other words, both aria-label and alt
attribute map to the <img> element's accessible name.

So it is sufficient to have aria-label on an <img> in place of an alt.
It is preferred to use native HTML elements and attributes but it is not an
accessibility fail to use the appropriate ARIA attribute in place of an
HTML one, provided it is sufficiently supported by assistive technologies.


On Fri, Aug 23, 2024 at 5:40 AM Jim Byrne Accessible Web Design <
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I’m auditing a website that has many crucial image that do not have alt
> attributes. However, they all have aria-label. I see W3C says ‘"The alt
> attribute continues to be the preferred way to provide alternative text for
> images” - which is bit vague.
>
> In the past having no alt attribute would have been a fail - on the
> standards validation test alone. But the validation test is deprecated. So
> - the missing alt attribute no longer a fail?
>
> The ARIA docs say that Aria-label is designed to add additional
> information. I.e., not the primary information expected via the alt
> attribute.
>
> I’m assuming that having no alt attribute on an image is still a fail -
> even if ARIA is used to provide the alternative text - and specifically
> using aria-label instead of the alt attribute. Am I correct?
>
> Thanks,
> Jim
>
>
>
> 
>
> Multi-award-winning WCAG 2.2 AA Accessibility Auditing and Accessibility
> Consultant
>
> Web: https://jimbyrne.co.uk
>
> Jim Byrne is one of the UK’s most experienced practitioners in the area of
> accessible digital design.
>
> Jim provided feedback during the development of WCAG 2 (the de facto
> accessibility guidelines used by governments across the world). He is the
> author of a number of technical books, training courses and accessibility
> guides. Jim was a winner of the equal access category of the Global
> Bangemann Challenge.
>
> > > > >


--
Work hard. Have fun. Make history.

From: Kevin White
Date: Fri, Aug 23 2024 3:54AM
Subject: Re: Is using aria-label to add alternative text - but no alt attribute still a WCAG fail?
← Previous message | Next message →

> On 23 Aug 2024, at 10:47, Patrick H. Lauke < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>
> On 23/08/2024 10:39, Jim Byrne Accessible Web Design wrote:
>> I see W3C says ‘"The alt attribute continues to be the preferred way to provide alternative text for images” - which is bit vague.
>
> Would be helpful to point to where this is said.

This is in the description of F65 <https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Techniques/failures/F65>

Kevin

From: Patrick H. Lauke
Date: Fri, Aug 23 2024 4:03AM
Subject: Re: Is using aria-label to add alternative text - but no alt attribute still a WCAG fail?
← Previous message | Next message →

On 23/08/2024 10:54, Kevin White wrote:

> This is in the description of F65 <https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Techniques/failures/F65>

Ah, thanks for that. Yeah that whole technique could do with a bit of
cleaning, as I suspect it's not been updated in aeons.

Even in its current state, it does say "Appropriate WAI-ARIA attributes
may be used to provide alternative text, as long as they are
accessibility supported".

aria-label is accessibility supported and provides an alternative /
accessible name. So at least that gels.

P
--
Patrick H. Lauke

* https://www.splintered.co.uk/
* https://github.com/patrickhlauke
* https://flickr.com/photos/redux/
* https://mastodon.social/@patrick_h_lauke

From: Jim Byrne Accessible Web Design
Date: Fri, Aug 23 2024 4:07AM
Subject: Re: Is using aria-label to add alternative text - but no alt attribute still a WCAG fail?
← Previous message | Next message →

Thanks Patrick and all - for the gentle kick in the head for my mistakes. LOL

Painful but much appreciated to be put right. :-)

The quote is from https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/F65.html "The alt attribute continues to be the preferred way to provide alternative text for images.=E2=80=9D.

My incorrect assertion related to aria-label was from memory: faulty memory obviously.

I won't make that mistake again. I did in fact start with the correct understanding - but managed to talk myself out of it as I was looking online.

Thanks y'all,
Jim

> On 23 Aug 2024, at 10:47, Patrick H. Lauke < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>
> On 23/08/2024 10:39, Jim Byrne Accessible Web Design wrote:
>> I see W3C says =E2=80=98"The alt attribute continues to be the preferred way to provide alternative text for images=E2=80=9D - which is bit vague.
>
> Would be helpful to point to where this is said.
>
>> The ARIA docs say that Aria-label is designed to add additional information. I.e., not the primary information expected via the alt attribute.
>
> Where does it say that? looking at https://w3c.github.io/aria/#aria-label it doesn't give me the impression that it means "additional information", because that would be incorrect. aria-label provides the accessible name for an element.
>
>> I'm assuming that having no alt attribute on an image is still a fail - even if ARIA is used to provide the alternative text - and specifically using aria-label instead of the alt attribute. Am I correct?
>
> aria-label provides the accessible name for an image, the same way alt provides the accessible name. Unless I'm missing a nuance, the two end up being identical and lead to the exact same end result.
>
> --
> Patrick H. Lauke
>
> * https://www.splintered.co.uk/
> * https://github.com/patrickhlauke
> * https://flickr.com/photos/redux/
> * https://mastodon.social/@patrick_h_lauke
>
> > > >

From: Steve Green
Date: Fri, Aug 23 2024 5:05AM
Subject: Re: Is using aria-label to add alternative text - but no alt attribute still a WCAG fail?
← Previous message | Next message →

If an image fails to load, some (most?) browsers display the "alt" attribute instead, but they don't display the "aria-label" value, so the "aria-label" attribute is not treated just like an "alt" attribute would be. Does this matter in terms of whether we regard "aria-label" as being accessibility support for <img> elements?

In terms of conformance with SC 1.1.1, "aria-label" only provides a text alternative for assistive technology users. Perhaps this is another of those cases where the provision of visible text when an image doesn't load is considered a usability issue, not an accessibility issue.

Steve Green
Managing Director
Test Partners Ltd

From: Birkir R. Gunnarsson
Date: Fri, Aug 23 2024 5:59AM
Subject: Re: Is using aria-label to add alternative text - but no alt attribute still a WCAG fail?
← Previous message | Next message →

That is a good point.
ARIA is focused on accessibility, native HTML sometimes provides more
functionality and usability, which is one of the primary reasons for rule 1
of ARIA use, use native HTML over ARIA if it can do the job.
But again, it's not a WCAG fail, just general good practice, which can be
important to users.


Other scenarios that come to mind:
Using the <title> element to provide alt text for <svg> images, (if user
mouses over the image they see the content of the <title> element)
whereas if you use aria-label it will only benefit technologies that
process ARIA, mostly screen readers.
Using associated <label> element to provide accessible name for form
controls. It enlarges the touch target/clickable area (since clicking the
label text ocuses the input/checks the checkbox/selects the radio button),
whereas aria labeling attributes provide an accessible name, if used
correctly, but do not add this benefit.


On Fri, Aug 23, 2024 at 5:49 AM Mark Magennis < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
wrote:

> It's not a WCAG fail. It doesn't fail SC 1.1.1 Non-text Content if the
> aria-label provides a text alternative because that's all the SC requires.
> Is there any other SC you think it might fail?
>
> Mark
>
> > From: WebAIM-Forum < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > on behalf of
> Jim Byrne Accessible Web Design < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Sent: Friday 23 August 2024 10:39
> To: WebAIM Discussion List < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [WebAIM] Is using aria-label to add alternative text -
> but no alt attribute still a WCAG fail?
>
> Hi,
>
> I’m auditing a website that has many crucial image that do not have alt
> attributes. However, they all have aria-label. I see W3C says ‘"The alt
> attribute continues to be the preferred way to provide alternative text for
> images” - which is bit vague.
>
> In the past having no alt attribute would have been a fail - on the
> standards validation test alone. But the validation test is deprecated. So
> - the missing alt attribute no longer a fail?
>
> The ARIA docs say that Aria-label is designed to add additional
> information. I.e., not the primary information expected via the alt
> attribute.
>
> I’m assuming that having no alt attribute on an image is still a fail -
> even if ARIA is used to provide the alternative text - and specifically
> using aria-label instead of the alt attribute. Am I correct?
>
> Thanks,
> Jim
>
>
>
> 
>
> Multi-award-winning WCAG 2.2 AA Accessibility Auditing and Accessibility
> Consultant
>
> Web:
> https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fjimbyrne.co.uk%2F&data=05%7C02%7CMark.Magennis%40skillsoft.com%7C173a3bf1c186404f9c5f08dcc3578f03%7C50361608aa23494da2332fd14d6a03f4%7C0%7C0%7C638600028068587499%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=0mMBC9Tg34UpDzuqhhygw7Zfc3a6NskgLNK9TOoFKxY%3D&reserved=0
> <https://jimbyrne.co.uk/>
>
> Jim Byrne is one of the UK’s most experienced practitioners in the area of
> accessible digital design.
>
> Jim provided feedback during the development of WCAG 2 (the de facto
> accessibility guidelines used by governments across the world). He is the
> author of a number of technical books, training courses and accessibility
> guides. Jim was a winner of the equal access category of the Global
> Bangemann Challenge.
>
> > > https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flist.webaim.org%2F&data=05%7C02%7CMark.Magennis%40skillsoft.com%7C173a3bf1c186404f9c5f08dcc3578f03%7C50361608aa23494da2332fd14d6a03f4%7C0%7C0%7C638600028068597594%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=mdFfkkvj3v4umEvN%2Bl3Ux1kz0v8oGQZkf8px6sLJl5E%3D&reserved=0
> <http://list.webaim.org/>;
> List archives at
> https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwebaim.org%2Fdiscussion%2Farchives&data=05%7C02%7CMark.Magennis%40skillsoft.com%7C173a3bf1c186404f9c5f08dcc3578f03%7C50361608aa23494da2332fd14d6a03f4%7C0%7C0%7C638600028068600722%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=rxZMroVee1Gx1%2Ff1ew6vUJf04BQa8r9VNAy0YekS5KI%3D&reserved=0
> <http://webaim.org/discussion/archives>;
> > > > > >


--
Work hard. Have fun. Make history.

From: Samantha Radomski
Date: Fri, Aug 23 2024 8:36AM
Subject: Re: Is using aria-label to add alternative text - but no alt attribute still a WCAG fail?
← Previous message | Next message →

Yes, you are correct, you will still have a failure if there is no alt text.

[El Paso County Love Logo - Blue L adjacent to Blue El Paso County Seal stacked on top of "VE" to spell the word love.]
Samantha Radomski, A.D.A.C.
Webmaster
El Paso County Communications Department
719.520.6464 (Office) | 719.421.9216 (Cell)
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
www.ElPasoCo.com <http://www.elpasoco.com/>;
Schedule A Meeting with Me!<https://outlook.office365.com/bookwithme/user/ = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ?anonymous&ep=plink>


From: WebAIM-Forum < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > On Behalf Of Jim Byrne Accessible Web Design
Sent: Friday, August 23, 2024 3:40 AM
To: WebAIM Discussion List < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Subject: [WebAIM] Is using aria-label to add alternative text - but no alt attribute still a WCAG fail?

You don't often get email from = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >. Learn why this is important<https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification>
CAUTION: This email originated from outside the El Paso County technology network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Please call IT Customer Support at 520-6355 if you are unsure of the integrity of this message.

Hi,

I’m auditing a website that has many crucial image that do not have alt attributes. However, they all have aria-label. I see W3C says ‘"The alt attribute continues to be the preferred way to provide alternative text for images” - which is bit vague.

In the past having no alt attribute would have been a fail - on the standards validation test alone. But the validation test is deprecated. So - the missing alt attribute no longer a fail?

The ARIA docs say that Aria-label is designed to add additional information. I.e., not the primary information expected via the alt attribute.

I’m assuming that having no alt attribute on an image is still a fail - even if ARIA is used to provide the alternative text - and specifically using aria-label instead of the alt attribute. Am I correct?

Thanks,
Jim





Multi-award-winning WCAG 2.2 AA Accessibility Auditing and Accessibility Consultant

Web: https://jimbyrne.co.uk<https://jimbyrne.co.uk>

Jim Byrne is one of the UK’s most experienced practitioners in the area of accessible digital design.

Jim provided feedback during the development of WCAG 2 (the de facto accessibility guidelines used by governments across the world). He is the author of a number of technical books, training courses and accessibility guides. Jim was a winner of the equal access category of the Global Bangemann Challenge.

From: Kevin Prince
Date: Sat, Aug 24 2024 3:35PM
Subject: Re: Is using aria-label to add alternative text - but no alt attribute still a WCAG fail?
← Previous message | Next message →

It's not a compliance failure if the information is provided in alternate means, and it is clear. So alt="" and an aria label would neet that.
It's horrible though ????

Kevin Prince
Accessibility Consultant
Access Advisors

Phone: +64212220638
Web: https://accessadvisors.nz/


If you have any access needs why not join our research panel where you can be paid to help improve digital accessibility in New Zealand.
I work flexibly and am sending this message now because it suits my work schedule. However I don't expect that you will read, respond to or action it outside of your regular working hours.

From: Sailesh Panchang
Date: Mon, Aug 26 2024 11:29AM
Subject: Re: Is using aria-label to add alternative text - but no alt attribute still a WCAG fail?
← Previous message | Next message →

Every documented technique generally states the situations it is suited for.
So yes, one can assign a title attribute for every form control on the
website and it will not result in a WCAG failure technically.
But not using the label-for technique (H44) where a visible label is
present will disadvantage some users who may need a larger clickable region
in some situations. The aria-label or aria-labelledby will pass too but
again that is not the situations for which these techniques are designed
for.
So also with alt for an image. Unless there are special circumstances that
warrant the use of an aria-label for an HTML IMG element, the alt is the
way to go.
Where an element is exposed as an image with role attribute, one can use
the aria-label to assign it a name for instance.
The issue therefore is that accessibility consultants should point out
situations where a technique is used inappropriately and point to the
technique that makes most sense.
Using ARIA is often done in order to appear fashionable, impress a boss etc
or simply because the developer is uninformed without realizing the effect
on end users. It also makes dev work more taxing especially for
maintenance.
I have seen lots of situations where aria-label is used to name links using
redundant verbose text painful for SR users by overriding visible link
text that is perfectly apt. Or, aria label to expose both column header and
row header in a static data table in place of TH for row/column headers.
Thanks
Sailesh Panchang | +1 (571) 344-1765
Technical Solutions Architect

Email: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Deque Systems Inc | - Accessibility for Good | www.deque.com














On Sat, Aug 24, 2024 at 5:35 PM Kevin Prince < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
wrote:

> It's not a compliance failure if the information is provided in alternate
> means, and it is clear. So alt="" and an aria label would neet that.
> It's horrible though ????
>
> Kevin Prince
> Accessibility Consultant
> Access Advisors
>
> Phone: +64212220638
> Web: https://accessadvisors.nz/
>
>
> If you have any access needs why not join our research panel where you can
> be paid to help improve digital accessibility in New Zealand.
> I work flexibly and am sending this message now because it suits my work
> schedule. However I don't expect that you will read, respond to or action
> it outside of your regular working hours.
>

From: L Snider
Date: Tue, Aug 27 2024 6:56AM
Subject: Re: Is using aria-label to add alternative text - but no alt attribute still a WCAG fail?
← Previous message | No next message

My view is this, if you can do an alt, you have to do it. Reason is not
just for people who use screen readers, but also those of us with very poor
internet connections who can't view images because of the dial up speeds
(many still have these speeds or are on poor data). If not, then a label. I
go past WCAG, as it never considered poor internet connections in my view.

Cheers

Lisa

On Mon, Aug 26, 2024 at 2:29 PM Sailesh Panchang < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
wrote:

> Every documented technique generally states the situations it is suited
> for.
> So yes, one can assign a title attribute for every form control on the
> website and it will not result in a WCAG failure technically.
> But not using the label-for technique (H44) where a visible label is
> present will disadvantage some users who may need a larger clickable region
> in some situations. The aria-label or aria-labelledby will pass too but
> again that is not the situations for which these techniques are designed
> for.
> So also with alt for an image. Unless there are special circumstances that
> warrant the use of an aria-label for an HTML IMG element, the alt is the
> way to go.
> Where an element is exposed as an image with role attribute, one can use
> the aria-label to assign it a name for instance.
> The issue therefore is that accessibility consultants should point out
> situations where a technique is used inappropriately and point to the
> technique that makes most sense.
> Using ARIA is often done in order to appear fashionable, impress a boss etc
> or simply because the developer is uninformed without realizing the effect
> on end users. It also makes dev work more taxing especially for
> maintenance.
> I have seen lots of situations where aria-label is used to name links using
> redundant verbose text painful for SR users by overriding visible link
> text that is perfectly apt. Or, aria label to expose both column header and
> row header in a static data table in place of TH for row/column headers.
> Thanks
> Sailesh Panchang | +1 (571) 344-1765
> Technical Solutions Architect
>
> Email: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> Deque Systems Inc | - Accessibility for Good | www.deque.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 24, 2024 at 5:35 PM Kevin Prince <
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> wrote:
>
> > It's not a compliance failure if the information is provided in alternate
> > means, and it is clear. So alt="" and an aria label would neet that.
> > It's horrible though ????
> >
> > Kevin Prince
> > Accessibility Consultant
> > Access Advisors
> >
> > Phone: +64212220638
> > Web: https://accessadvisors.nz/
> >
> >
> > If you have any access needs why not join our research panel where you
> can
> > be paid to help improve digital accessibility in New Zealand.
> > I work flexibly and am sending this message now because it suits my work
> > schedule. However I don't expect that you will read, respond to or action
> > it outside of your regular working hours.
> >