E-mail List Archives
Thread: Rules versus "Rules"
Number of posts in this thread: 4 (In chronological order)
From: Ryan Hemphill
Date: Wed, Apr 11 2012 12:24PM
Subject: Rules versus "Rules"
No previous message | Next message →
Hey guys,
There has been a discussion at my job today about 508/WCAG versus more
'soft assessments' of accessibility considering how well the software
actually works.
Can anyone weigh in on their experiences? We all know that 'being
compliant' on a legal standard doesn't necessarily translate to
accessibility. I'm interested to hear your perspective and what you've
seen. Have you been seeing the 'soft criteria' initiate change much or is
it still in debate?
Ryan
--
Shipping is a Feature...Perhaps the Most Important Feature.
From: Ryan E. Benson
Date: Thu, Apr 12 2012 8:33PM
Subject: Re: Rules versus "Rules"
← Previous message | Next message →
Hi Ryan,
I would say it depends on what authority you have on the product, who
the audience is, and how well you document your justifications for not
technically meeting something. For the first part, at work when I am
acting as/for a COTR/COR (Contracting Officer Technical Rep) a
contractor cannot tell me that they are simply going to do x because
of some reason. I can instruct them not to do x either because I have
the authority to do so. Of course they can suggest work arounds, but I
can say no follow the rules.
For the last criteria I listed, justification, my mindset goes to COTS
(Commercial Off The Shelf) products and VPATs. While this might not be
the best example, I think you can see what I mean, say instead of
using a label, you are doing something with ARIA, you should mark it
as partially compliant, and in the notes how some fields are using
ARIA, a sentence overviewing what ARIA is, and a link to a statement
on your site which: details ARIA, why your company uses it at times,
and which AT supports it well.
--
Ryan E. Benson
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 2:24 PM, Ryan Hemphill
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> Hey guys,
>
> There has been a discussion at my job today about 508/WCAG versus more
> 'soft assessments' of accessibility considering how well the software
> actually works.
>
> Can anyone weigh in on their experiences? We all know that 'being
> compliant' on a legal standard doesn't necessarily translate to
> accessibility. I'm interested to hear your perspective and what you've
> seen. Have you been seeing the 'soft criteria' initiate change much or is
> it still in debate?
>
> Ryan
>
> --
>
>
>
> Shipping is a Feature...Perhaps the Most Important Feature.
> > >
From: Ryan Hemphill
Date: Fri, Apr 13 2012 6:45AM
Subject: Re: Rules versus "Rules"
← Previous message | Next message →
Interesting - in our case, we are trying to make the systems that we
created work on JAWS, NVDA and VoiceOver if possible. We aren't spending
any time on other systems because everything that we have is RIA and things
like Windows Eyes can't do it successfully (at least they can't at this
time).
We are also very concerned about the screen readers being able to move
about the system in ways that normal users cannot. Because of this, we are
trying to take measures to insure that bugs are not created that might blow
up the system because there are interactive requirements that might be
ignored by the SR software. Add the focus management pieces and other
major issues that need to be addressed and it becomes obvious (at least to
us) that the main way to make sure the site is accessible first and follows
the Rules if that is an option. "Close enough for practical purposes" has
become the engineering adage we have adhered to in order to make sure that
things are as functional as possible from an accessibility perspective, but
make no mistake - we take our work extremely seriously.
Working in a complex RIA environment that uses some HTML5 functionality has
shown me that the struggles of screen readers may require more leeway in
some cases. I'd like to talk more about these things because we are doing
the best we can to insure our product holds the highest standard in a11y
possible - but that means that in many cases we might not be following the
best practices or even the Rules. Is there any way that we can have our
work assessed for these issues to get a 'blessing' despite this? I also
think it would be a good thing to push these issues out there to recognize
the potential future of RIA for accessibility because the sophistication of
our system really shows some pitfalls that need to be overcome or at least
made public.
Ryan.
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 10:33 PM, Ryan E. Benson < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >wrote:
> Hi Ryan,
>
> I would say it depends on what authority you have on the product, who
> the audience is, and how well you document your justifications for not
> technically meeting something. For the first part, at work when I am
> acting as/for a COTR/COR (Contracting Officer Technical Rep) a
> contractor cannot tell me that they are simply going to do x because
> of some reason. I can instruct them not to do x either because I have
> the authority to do so. Of course they can suggest work arounds, but I
> can say no follow the rules.
>
> For the last criteria I listed, justification, my mindset goes to COTS
> (Commercial Off The Shelf) products and VPATs. While this might not be
> the best example, I think you can see what I mean, say instead of
> using a label, you are doing something with ARIA, you should mark it
> as partially compliant, and in the notes how some fields are using
> ARIA, a sentence overviewing what ARIA is, and a link to a statement
> on your site which: details ARIA, why your company uses it at times,
> and which AT supports it well.
>
> --
> Ryan E. Benson
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 2:24 PM, Ryan Hemphill
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> > Hey guys,
> >
> > There has been a discussion at my job today about 508/WCAG versus more
> > 'soft assessments' of accessibility considering how well the software
> > actually works.
> >
> > Can anyone weigh in on their experiences? We all know that 'being
> > compliant' on a legal standard doesn't necessarily translate to
> > accessibility. I'm interested to hear your perspective and what you've
> > seen. Have you been seeing the 'soft criteria' initiate change much or
> is
> > it still in debate?
> >
> > Ryan
> >
> > --
> >
> >
> >
> > Shipping is a Feature...Perhaps the Most Important Feature.
> > > > > > > > > >
--
Shipping is a Feature...Perhaps the Most Important Feature.
From: Ryan E. Benson
Date: Sun, Apr 15 2012 5:01PM
Subject: Re: Rules versus "Rules"
← Previous message | No next message
> We aren't spending
> any time on other systems because everything that we have is RIA and things
> like Windows Eyes can't do it successfully (at least they can't at this
> time).
So something like ZoomText or keyboard-only isn't being considered? I
used this example somewhere else, but is still valid here. I reviewed
a site that created fancy looking pop up bubbles to supply more
information. Using just the keyboard and ZoomText (seperate tests) the
popup didn't show nor was read. JAWS on the other hand was able to
fire the event and showed the bubble. No a user wouldn't know it was
there, but that's besides the point...
> "Close enough for practical purposes" has
> become the engineering adage we have adhered to in order to make sure that
> things are as functional as possible from an accessibility perspective, but
> make no mistake - we take our work extremely seriously.
Well at work all courses must be fully compliant with 508. There are
several teaching techniques that are near impossible to make
accessible, like drag-and-drop. How our rules go, you must provide an
accessible way to do that part, however if said course had such
element, you don't get a free ride and just do a text only or PDF
version.
> Is there any way that we can have our
> work assessed for these issues to get a 'blessing' despite this?
It comes down to your documentation and your [potential] buyer. For my
workplace, myself and one (well two) other person can give a blessing.
I rely on VPATs, other documentation and depending on how widespread
the application is, I would maybe need to test it
--
Ryan E. Benson
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 8:45 AM, Ryan Hemphill
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> Interesting - in our case, we are trying to make the systems that we
> created work on JAWS, NVDA and VoiceOver if possible. We aren't spending
> any time on other systems because everything that we have is RIA and things
> like Windows Eyes can't do it successfully (at least they can't at this
> time).
>
> We are also very concerned about the screen readers being able to move
> about the system in ways that normal users cannot. Because of this, we are
> trying to take measures to insure that bugs are not created that might blow
> up the system because there are interactive requirements that might be
> ignored by the SR software. Add the focus management pieces and other
> major issues that need to be addressed and it becomes obvious (at least to
> us) that the main way to make sure the site is accessible first and follows
> the Rules if that is an option. "Close enough for practical purposes" has
> become the engineering adage we have adhered to in order to make sure that
> things are as functional as possible from an accessibility perspective, but
> make no mistake - we take our work extremely seriously.
>
> Working in a complex RIA environment that uses some HTML5 functionality has
> shown me that the struggles of screen readers may require more leeway in
> some cases. I'd like to talk more about these things because we are doing
> the best we can to insure our product holds the highest standard in a11y
> possible - but that means that in many cases we might not be following the
> best practices or even the Rules. Is there any way that we can have our
> work assessed for these issues to get a 'blessing' despite this? I also
> think it would be a good thing to push these issues out there to recognize
> the potential future of RIA for accessibility because the sophistication of
> our system really shows some pitfalls that need to be overcome or at least
> made public.
>
> Ryan.
>
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 10:33 PM, Ryan E. Benson < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >wrote:
>
>> Hi Ryan,
>>
>> I would say it depends on what authority you have on the product, who
>> the audience is, and how well you document your justifications for not
>> technically meeting something. For the first part, at work when I am
>> acting as/for a COTR/COR (Contracting Officer Technical Rep) a
>> contractor cannot tell me that they are simply going to do x because
>> of some reason. I can instruct them not to do x either because I have
>> the authority to do so. Of course they can suggest work arounds, but I
>> can say no follow the rules.
>>
>> For the last criteria I listed, justification, my mindset goes to COTS
>> (Commercial Off The Shelf) products and VPATs. While this might not be
>> the best example, I think you can see what I mean, say instead of
>> using a label, you are doing something with ARIA, you should mark it
>> as partially compliant, and in the notes how some fields are using
>> ARIA, a sentence overviewing what ARIA is, and a link to a statement
>> on your site which: details ARIA, why your company uses it at times,
>> and which AT supports it well.
>>
>> --
>> Ryan E. Benson
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 2:24 PM, Ryan Hemphill
>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>> > Hey guys,
>> >
>> > There has been a discussion at my job today about 508/WCAG versus more
>> > 'soft assessments' of accessibility considering how well the software
>> > actually works.
>> >
>> > Can anyone weigh in on their experiences? We all know that 'being
>> > compliant' on a legal standard doesn't necessarily translate to
>> > accessibility. I'm interested to hear your perspective and what you've
>> > seen. Have you been seeing the 'soft criteria' initiate change much or
>> is
>> > it still in debate?
>> >
>> > Ryan
>> >
>> > --
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Shipping is a Feature...Perhaps the Most Important Feature.
>> > >> > >> > >> >> >> >>
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
> Shipping is a Feature...Perhaps the Most Important Feature.
> > >