E-mail List Archives
Thread: If default navigation is not keyboard accessible does an alternative access mean it still passes AA WCAG?
Number of posts in this thread: 8 (In chronological order)
From: Jim Byrne Accessible Web Design
Date: Wed, Jun 10 2020 6:36AM
Subject: If default navigation is not keyboard accessible does an alternative access mean it still passes AA WCAG?
No previous message | Next message →
Hi,
I reviewed a virtual tour and found that the tour was not inaccessible via keyboard. For example, the hotspots are invisible to keyboard and screen reader users. When a mouse hovers over the hotspots summary information is provided and when clicked the user is taken to a new area on the virtual tour.
Apparently this can't be fixed due to the technology used to create the tour. The default virtual tour is inaccessible and can't be made accessible.
They propose to provide an accessible alternative to the entire tour experience by creating accessible videos. Each area covered by the tour would be described in a video. The captions will fully describe all aspects of each area - both the commentary (i.e. the speech) and everything relevant that is on the screen.
My question is. If the video is accessible but the default tour remains inaccessible does their virtual tour pass WCAG AA - assuming all other checkpoints are passed?
Thanks,
Jim
About Jim Byrne
With over two decades of experience Jim Byrne is one of the UK's most experienced practitioners in the area of accessible web design. Jim provided feedback during the development of WCAG 2 as part of the Guild of Accessible Website Designers. 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.
Jim Byrne: Specialist in Accessible Website Design.
Web: http://www.jimbyrne.co.uk
Twitter: http://twitter.com/#!/jimbyrnewebdev
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/thirdsectorwebsitedevelopment
From: Patrick H. Lauke
Date: Wed, Jun 10 2020 6:43AM
Subject: Re: If default navigation is not keyboard accessible does an alternative access mean it still passes AA WCAG?
← Previous message | Next message →
On 10/06/2020 13:36, Jim Byrne Accessible Web Design wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I reviewed a virtual tour and found that the tour was not inaccessible via keyboard. For example, the hotspots are invisible to keyboard and screen reader users. When a mouse hovers over the hotspots summary information is provided and when clicked the user is taken to a new area on the virtual tour.
>
> Apparently this can't be fixed due to the technology used to create the tour. The default virtual tour is inaccessible and can't be made accessible.
>
> They propose to provide an accessible alternative to the entire tour experience by creating accessible videos. Each area covered by the tour would be described in a video. The captions will fully describe all aspects of each area - both the commentary (i.e. the speech) and everything relevant that is on the screen.
>
> My question is. If the video is accessible but the default tour remains inaccessible does their virtual tour pass WCAG AA - assuming all other checkpoints are passed?
The video (provided it does indeed provide all the same
information/functionality) would act as a "conforming alternate version"
https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#dfn-conforming-alternate-version - so all
other things being equal, all points outlined there being satisfied, yes
that'd pass.
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: England, Kristina
Date: Wed, Jun 10 2020 7:08AM
Subject: Re: If default navigation is not keyboard accessible does an alternative access mean it still passes AA WCAG?
← Previous message | Next message →
Reviewing the conforming alternative versions is a good starting point. However, usability of the alternative version is a huge factor. There's a virtual tour that has an alternative version that doesn't "pass" as they didn't fully understand what went into an alternative version (i.e., a knowledge of the various personas that would use that conforming version). They created a one pager that has load issues depending on the amount of videos you have and is generally exhausting to navigate as someone using keyboard only or someone with low vision (it has the heading and landmark structure for people using screen readers but, again, as a one pager, even that can be exhausting due to the length of the page). That same alternative version has gone out of sync with the non-conforming version so the only way to confirm it will stay in sync when a vendor is managing the conforming version is to cross your fingers and wait for nothing to go wrong with the conforming version. It's also extremely easy for a vendor to make a code change that impacts the conforming version and makes it non-conforming. Just some thoughts as it's actually pretty hard to ensure a conforming alternative version is kept equally effective and is maintained in the long run. Having tested alternative versions of products outside of virtual tours as well, I've yet to come across one that actually conforms (or if it does, continues to conform).
From: WebAIM-Forum < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > on behalf of Patrick H. Lauke < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2020 8:43 AM
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] If default navigation is not keyboard accessible does an alternative access mean it still passes AA WCAG?
[External Sender]
On 10/06/2020 13:36, Jim Byrne Accessible Web Design wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I reviewed a virtual tour and found that the tour was not inaccessible via keyboard. For example, the hotspots are invisible to keyboard and screen reader users. When a mouse hovers over the hotspots summary information is provided and when clicked the user is taken to a new area on the virtual tour.
>
> Apparently this cant be fixed due to the technology used to create the tour. The default virtual tour is inaccessible and cant be made accessible.
>
> They propose to provide an accessible alternative to the entire tour experience by creating accessible videos. Each area covered by the tour would be described in a video. The captions will fully describe all aspects of each area - both the commentary (i.e. the speech) and everything relevant that is on the screen.
>
> My question is. If the video is accessible but the default tour remains inaccessible does their virtual tour pass WCAG AA - assuming all other checkpoints are passed?
The video (provided it does indeed provide all the same
information/functionality) would act as a "conforming alternate version"
https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#dfn-conforming-alternate-version<https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#dfn-conforming-alternate-version> - so all
other things being equal, all points outlined there being satisfied, yes
that'd pass.
P
--
Patrick H. Lauke
https://www.splintered.co.uk/<https://www.splintered.co.uk> | https://github.com/patrickhlauke<https://github.com/patrickhlauke>
https://flickr.com/photos/redux/<https://flickr.com/photos/redux> | https://www.deviantart.com/redux<https://www.deviantart.com/redux>
twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
From: Jim Byrne Accessible Web Design
Date: Wed, Jun 10 2020 7:39AM
Subject: Re: If default navigation is not keyboard accessible does an alternative access mean it still passes AA WCAG?
← Previous message | Next message →
Thanks Patrick,
I appreciate you taking the time to reply.
All the best,
Jim
> On 10 Jun 2020, at 13:43, Patrick H. Lauke < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>
> On 10/06/2020 13:36, Jim Byrne Accessible Web Design wrote:
>> Hi,
>> I reviewed a virtual tour and found that the tour was not inaccessible via keyboard. For example, the hotspots are invisible to keyboard and screen reader users. When a mouse hovers over the hotspots summary information is provided and when clicked the user is taken to a new area on the virtual tour.
>> Apparently this can't be fixed due to the technology used to create the tour. The default virtual tour is inaccessible and can't be made accessible.
>> They propose to provide an accessible alternative to the entire tour experience by creating accessible videos. Each area covered by the tour would be described in a video. The captions will fully describe all aspects of each area - both the commentary (i.e. the speech) and everything relevant that is on the screen.
>> My question is. If the video is accessible but the default tour remains inaccessible does their virtual tour pass WCAG AA - assuming all other checkpoints are passed?
>
> The video (provided it does indeed provide all the same information/functionality) would act as a "conforming alternate version" https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#dfn-conforming-alternate-version - so all other things being equal, all points outlined there being satisfied, yes that'd pass.
>
> 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
> > > > About Jim Byrne
With over two decades of experience Jim Byrne is one of the UK's most experienced practitioners in the area of accessible web design. Jim provided feedback during the development of WCAG 2 as part of the Guild of Accessible Website Designers. 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.
Jim Byrne: Specialist in Accessible Website Design.
Web: http://www.jimbyrne.co.uk
Twitter: http://twitter.com/#!/jimbyrnewebdev
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/thirdsectorwebsitedevelopment
From: Jim Byrne Accessible Web Design
Date: Wed, Jun 10 2020 8:07AM
Subject: Re: If default navigation is not keyboard accessible does an alternative access mean it still passes AA WCAG?
← Previous message | Next message →
Thanks Kristina for you thoughts on this.
In light of your input - can I ask you what you prefer between these two options (or if you don't prefer any what's better):
At the moment each virtual room is accessible from a menu at the top of the page. Should the alterantive version be accessed via a link on each of the exiting pages? I.e. on every default virtual tour page there is a link to the accessible version of that same page.
Or should there be an extra item added to the existing navigation that links to an alternative version of the entire tour? The alternative version mimics the structure of the default version but each page is an accessible video rather than the virtual tour version?
They were talking about automatically detecting if someone was using a screen reader and taking them automatically to the alternative version. I discouraged them from doing that as I never think it's a good idea to take control away from the visitor. They don't know why someone is using a screen reader - so they could actually end up making the tour inaccessible to some people and they are taking away their choice.
If anyone disagree with my opinion on that I'm happy to hear your arguments.
Thanks for your input.
All the best,
Jim
> On 10 Jun 2020, at 14:08, England, Kristina < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>
> Reviewing the conforming alternative versions is a good starting point. However, usability of the alternative version is a huge factor. There's a virtual tour that has an alternative version that doesn't "pass" as they didn't fully understand what went into an alternative version (i.e., a knowledge of the various personas that would use that conforming version). They created a one pager that has load issues depending on the amount of videos you have and is generally exhausting to navigate as someone using keyboard only or someone with low vision (it has the heading and landmark structure for people using screen readers but, again, as a one pager, even that can be exhausting due to the length of the page). That same alternative version has gone out of sync with the non-conforming version so the only way to confirm it will stay in sync when a vendor is managing the conforming version is to cross your fingers and wait for nothing to go wrong with the conforming version. It's also extremely easy for a vendor to make a code change that impacts the conforming version and makes it non-conforming. Just some thoughts as it's actually pretty hard to ensure a conforming alternative version is kept equally effective and is maintained in the long run. Having tested alternative versions of products outside of virtual tours as well, I've yet to come across one that actually conforms (or if it does, continues to conform).
>
> > From: WebAIM-Forum < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > on behalf of Patrick H. Lauke < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2020 8:43 AM
> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Subject: Re: [WebAIM] If default navigation is not keyboard accessible does an alternative access mean it still passes AA WCAG?
>
> [External Sender]
>
> On 10/06/2020 13:36, Jim Byrne Accessible Web Design wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I reviewed a virtual tour and found that the tour was not inaccessible via keyboard. For example, the hotspots are invisible to keyboard and screen reader users. When a mouse hovers over the hotspots summary information is provided and when clicked the user is taken to a new area on the virtual tour.
>>
>> Apparently this can't be fixed due to the technology used to create the tour. The default virtual tour is inaccessible and can't be made accessible.
>>
>> They propose to provide an accessible alternative to the entire tour experience by creating accessible videos. Each area covered by the tour would be described in a video. The captions will fully describe all aspects of each area - both the commentary (i.e. the speech) and everything relevant that is on the screen.
>>
>> My question is. If the video is accessible but the default tour remains inaccessible does their virtual tour pass WCAG AA - assuming all other checkpoints are passed?
>
> The video (provided it does indeed provide all the same
> information/functionality) would act as a "conforming alternate version"
> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#dfn-conforming-alternate-version<https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#dfn-conforming-alternate-version> - so all
> other things being equal, all points outlined there being satisfied, yes
> that'd pass.
>
> P
> --
> Patrick H. Lauke
>
> https://www.splintered.co.uk/<https://www.splintered.co.uk> | https://github.com/patrickhlauke<https://github.com/patrickhlauke>
> https://flickr.com/photos/redux/<https://flickr.com/photos/redux> | https://www.deviantart.com/redux<https://www.deviantart.com/redux>
> twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
> > > > >
> > > > >
About Jim Byrne
With over two decades of experience Jim Byrne is one of the UK's most experienced practitioners in the area of accessible web design. Jim provided feedback during the development of WCAG 2 as part of the Guild of Accessible Website Designers. 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.
Jim Byrne: Specialist in Accessible Website Design.
Web: http://www.jimbyrne.co.uk
Twitter: http://twitter.com/#!/jimbyrnewebdev
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/thirdsectorwebsitedevelopment
From: England, Kristina
Date: Wed, Jun 10 2020 8:37AM
Subject: Re: If default navigation is not keyboard accessible does an alternative access mean it still passes AA WCAG?
← Previous message | Next message →
You would definitely want it on each page if you go that route as if someone can enter from any page in the virtual tour through a shared link or through google search, then you would want to keep the navigation item consistent throughout.
Definitely good to avoid detecting a screen reader. Not only is it an invasion of privacy and takes the decision away from the user, but it also goes back to vendors not understanding the overall personas. Keyboard only users won't be using a screen reader. They could be using just a keyboard, a switch, etc. And what kind of virtual tour is it? Is the content on the virtual tour videos or are they 360 experiences? If 360, no one with a vestibular disorder is going to want to use that virtual tour. They are going to want the videos.
My list of questions goes on from there, including questions about cognitive load, low vision, situational personas, etc.
Of course, my general question is always what benefit does the non-conformant virtual tour provide users that the conformant one does not?
Oh, and an interesting experience is testing whatever product you are looking at on mobile, especially if your audience has a lot of mobile users. We found that virtual tours didn't take into consideration the mobile experience and our mobile usage is much higher than desktop usage based on our audience.
Kristina England
Senior Digital Experience and Accessibility Specialist
University Information Technology Services
UMass Office of the President
333 South Street, Shrewsbury, MA 01545
774-455-7874
[UMass Logo]
UITS Most Valued Behaviors: Communicate Thoughtfully + Foster a Growth Mindset + Take a Holistic View + Embrace a Culture of Inquiry + Practice and Protect Courage
From: WebAIM-Forum < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > on behalf of Jim Byrne Accessible Web Design < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2020 10:07 AM
To: WebAIM Discussion List < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] If default navigation is not keyboard accessible does an alternative access mean it still passes AA WCAG?
[External Sender]
Thanks Kristina for you thoughts on this.
In light of your input - can I ask you what you prefer between these two options (or if you dont prefer any whats better):
At the moment each virtual room is accessible from a menu at the top of the page. Should the alterantive version be accessed via a link on each of the exiting pages? I.e. on every default virtual tour page there is a link to the accessible version of that same page.
Or should there be an extra item added to the existing navigation that links to an alternative version of the entire tour? The alternative version mimics the structure of the default version but each page is an accessible video rather than the virtual tour version?
They were talking about automatically detecting if someone was using a screen reader and taking them automatically to the alternative version. I discouraged them from doing that as I never think its a good idea to take control away from the visitor. They dont know why someone is using a screen reader - so they could actually end up making the tour inaccessible to some people and they are taking away their choice.
If anyone disagree with my opinion on that Im happy to hear your arguments.
Thanks for your input.
All the best,
Jim
> On 10 Jun 2020, at 14:08, England, Kristina < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>
> Reviewing the conforming alternative versions is a good starting point. However, usability of the alternative version is a huge factor. There's a virtual tour that has an alternative version that doesn't "pass" as they didn't fully understand what went into an alternative version (i.e., a knowledge of the various personas that would use that conforming version). They created a one pager that has load issues depending on the amount of videos you have and is generally exhausting to navigate as someone using keyboard only or someone with low vision (it has the heading and landmark structure for people using screen readers but, again, as a one pager, even that can be exhausting due to the length of the page). That same alternative version has gone out of sync with the non-conforming version so the only way to confirm it will stay in sync when a vendor is managing the conforming version is to cross your fingers and wait for nothing to go wrong with the conforming version. It's also extremely easy for a vendor to make a code change that impacts the conforming version and makes it non-conforming. Just some thoughts as it's actually pretty hard to ensure a conforming alternative version is kept equally effective and is maintained in the long run. Having tested alternative versions of products outside of virtual tours as well, I've yet to come across one that actually conforms (or if it does, continues to conform).
>
> > From: WebAIM-Forum < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > on behalf of Patrick H. Lauke < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2020 8:43 AM
> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Subject: Re: [WebAIM] If default navigation is not keyboard accessible does an alternative access mean it still passes AA WCAG?
>
> [External Sender]
>
> On 10/06/2020 13:36, Jim Byrne Accessible Web Design wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I reviewed a virtual tour and found that the tour was not inaccessible via keyboard. For example, the hotspots are invisible to keyboard and screen reader users. When a mouse hovers over the hotspots summary information is provided and when clicked the user is taken to a new area on the virtual tour.
>>
>> Apparently this cant be fixed due to the technology used to create the tour. The default virtual tour is inaccessible and cant be made accessible.
>>
>> They propose to provide an accessible alternative to the entire tour experience by creating accessible videos. Each area covered by the tour would be described in a video. The captions will fully describe all aspects of each area - both the commentary (i.e. the speech) and everything relevant that is on the screen.
>>
>> My question is. If the video is accessible but the default tour remains inaccessible does their virtual tour pass WCAG AA - assuming all other checkpoints are passed?
>
> The video (provided it does indeed provide all the same
> information/functionality) would act as a "conforming alternate version"
> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#dfn-conforming-alternate-version<https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#dfn-conforming-alternate-version><https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#dfn-conforming-alternate-version<https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#dfn-conforming-alternate-version>> - so all
> other things being equal, all points outlined there being satisfied, yes
> that'd pass.
>
> P
> --
> Patrick H. Lauke
>
> https://www.splintered.co.uk/<https://www.splintered.co.uk><https://www.splintered.co.uk<https://www.splintered.co.uk>> | https://github.com/patrickhlauke<https://github.com/patrickhlauke><https://github.com/patrickhlauke<https://github.com/patrickhlauke>>
> https://flickr.com/photos/redux/<https://flickr.com/photos/redux><https://flickr.com/photos/redux<https://flickr.com/photos/redux>> | https://www.deviantart.com/redux<https://www.deviantart.com/redux><https://www.deviantart.com/redux<https://www.deviantart.com/redux>>
> twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
> > > > >
> > > > >
About Jim Byrne
With over two decades of experience Jim Byrne is one of the UKs most experienced practitioners in the area of accessible web design. Jim provided feedback during the development of WCAG 2 as part of the Guild of Accessible Website Designers. 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.
Jim Byrne: Specialist in Accessible Website Design.
Web: http://www.jimbyrne.co.uk<;http://www.jimbyrne.co.uk>;
Twitter: http://twitter.com/#!/jimbyrnewebdev<http://twitter.com/#!/jimbyrnewebdev>
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/thirdsectorwebsitedevelopment<https://www.facebook.com/thirdsectorwebsitedevelopment>
From: Jim Byrne Accessible Web Design
Date: Wed, Jun 10 2020 9:02AM
Subject: Re: If default navigation is not keyboard accessible does an alternative access mean it still passes AA WCAG?
← Previous message | Next message →
Thanks Kristina,
The link to the alternative version would be on every page - no matter the solution chosen. If the alternative version had it's own structure - then it saves that one extra click each time the visitor goes to a new page, i.e. they don't need to click away from the default version to get the accessible version, every time they navigate to a new page.
Re: mobile
Good point. It is not a 360 immersive experience they have - it's a two dimensional tour that pans and zooms in and out.
Re: 'Of course, my general question is always what benefit does the non-conformant virtual tour provide users that the conformant one does not?'
I suppose you could ask the bigger question, âwhat's the value of a virtual tour'? If there's no value then there's no point in making one in the first place. But people are making them and I have to assume people are using them. Certainly the people making them must think there's a benefit to a virtual tour over a text description, a video or a photograph. :-)
All the best,
Jim
> On 10 Jun 2020, at 15:37, England, Kristina < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>
> You would definitely want it on each page if you go that route as if someone can enter from any page in the virtual tour through a shared link or through google search, then you would want to keep the navigation item consistent throughout.
>
> Definitely good to avoid detecting a screen reader. Not only is it an invasion of privacy and takes the decision away from the user, but it also goes back to vendors not understanding the overall personas. Keyboard only users won't be using a screen reader. They could be using just a keyboard, a switch, etc. And what kind of virtual tour is it? Is the content on the virtual tour videos or are they 360 experiences? If 360, no one with a vestibular disorder is going to want to use that virtual tour. They are going to want the videos.
>
> My list of questions goes on from there, including questions about cognitive load, low vision, situational personas, etc.
>
> Of course, my general question is always what benefit does the non-conformant virtual tour provide users that the conformant one does not?
>
> Oh, and an interesting experience is testing whatever product you are looking at on mobile, especially if your audience has a lot of mobile users. We found that virtual tours didn't take into consideration the mobile experience and our mobile usage is much higher than desktop usage based on our audience.
>
>
> Kristina England
> Senior Digital Experience and Accessibility Specialist
> University Information Technology Services
> UMass Office of the President
> 333 South Street, Shrewsbury, MA 01545
> 774-455-7874
>
> [UMass Logo]
>
>
>
> UITS Most Valued Behaviors: Communicate Thoughtfully + Foster a Growth Mindset + Take a Holistic View + Embrace a Culture of Inquiry + Practice and Protect Courage
>
>
> > From: WebAIM-Forum < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > on behalf of Jim Byrne Accessible Web Design < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2020 10:07 AM
> To: WebAIM Discussion List < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Subject: Re: [WebAIM] If default navigation is not keyboard accessible does an alternative access mean it still passes AA WCAG?
>
> [External Sender]
>
> Thanks Kristina for you thoughts on this.
>
> In light of your input - can I ask you what you prefer between these two options (or if you don't prefer any what's better):
>
> At the moment each virtual room is accessible from a menu at the top of the page. Should the alterantive version be accessed via a link on each of the exiting pages? I.e. on every default virtual tour page there is a link to the accessible version of that same page.
>
> Or should there be an extra item added to the existing navigation that links to an alternative version of the entire tour? The alternative version mimics the structure of the default version but each page is an accessible video rather than the virtual tour version?
>
> They were talking about automatically detecting if someone was using a screen reader and taking them automatically to the alternative version. I discouraged them from doing that as I never think it's a good idea to take control away from the visitor. They don't know why someone is using a screen reader - so they could actually end up making the tour inaccessible to some people and they are taking away their choice.
>
> If anyone disagree with my opinion on that I'm happy to hear your arguments.
>
> Thanks for your input.
>
> All the best,
> Jim
>
>> On 10 Jun 2020, at 14:08, England, Kristina < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>>
>> Reviewing the conforming alternative versions is a good starting point. However, usability of the alternative version is a huge factor. There's a virtual tour that has an alternative version that doesn't "pass" as they didn't fully understand what went into an alternative version (i.e., a knowledge of the various personas that would use that conforming version). They created a one pager that has load issues depending on the amount of videos you have and is generally exhausting to navigate as someone using keyboard only or someone with low vision (it has the heading and landmark structure for people using screen readers but, again, as a one pager, even that can be exhausting due to the length of the page). That same alternative version has gone out of sync with the non-conforming version so the only way to confirm it will stay in sync when a vendor is managing the conforming version is to cross your fingers and wait for nothing to go wrong with the conforming version. It's also extremely easy for a vendor to make a code change that impacts the conforming version and makes it non-conforming. Just some thoughts as it's actually pretty hard to ensure a conforming alternative version is kept equally effective and is maintained in the long run. Having tested alternative versions of products outside of virtual tours as well, I've yet to come across one that actually conforms (or if it does, continues to conform).
>>
>> >> From: WebAIM-Forum < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > on behalf of Patrick H. Lauke < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2020 8:43 AM
>> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> Subject: Re: [WebAIM] If default navigation is not keyboard accessible does an alternative access mean it still passes AA WCAG?
>>
>> [External Sender]
>>
>> On 10/06/2020 13:36, Jim Byrne Accessible Web Design wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I reviewed a virtual tour and found that the tour was not inaccessible via keyboard. For example, the hotspots are invisible to keyboard and screen reader users. When a mouse hovers over the hotspots summary information is provided and when clicked the user is taken to a new area on the virtual tour.
>>>
>>> Apparently this can't be fixed due to the technology used to create the tour. The default virtual tour is inaccessible and can't be made accessible.
>>>
>>> They propose to provide an accessible alternative to the entire tour experience by creating accessible videos. Each area covered by the tour would be described in a video. The captions will fully describe all aspects of each area - both the commentary (i.e. the speech) and everything relevant that is on the screen.
>>>
>>> My question is. If the video is accessible but the default tour remains inaccessible does their virtual tour pass WCAG AA - assuming all other checkpoints are passed?
>>
>> The video (provided it does indeed provide all the same
>> information/functionality) would act as a "conforming alternate version"
>> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#dfn-conforming-alternate-version<https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#dfn-conforming-alternate-version><https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#dfn-conforming-alternate-version<https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#dfn-conforming-alternate-version>> - so all
>> other things being equal, all points outlined there being satisfied, yes
>> that'd pass.
>>
>> P
>> --
>> Patrick H. Lauke
>>
>> https://www.splintered.co.uk/<https://www.splintered.co.uk><https://www.splintered.co.uk<https://www.splintered.co.uk>> | https://github.com/patrickhlauke<https://github.com/patrickhlauke><https://github.com/patrickhlauke<https://github.com/patrickhlauke>>
>> https://flickr.com/photos/redux/<https://flickr.com/photos/redux><https://flickr.com/photos/redux<https://flickr.com/photos/redux>> | https://www.deviantart.com/redux<https://www.deviantart.com/redux><https://www.deviantart.com/redux<https://www.deviantart.com/redux>>
>> twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >>
>
>
>
>
> About Jim Byrne
> With over two decades of experience Jim Byrne is one of the UK's most experienced practitioners in the area of accessible web design. Jim provided feedback during the development of WCAG 2 as part of the Guild of Accessible Website Designers. 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.
>
> Jim Byrne: Specialist in Accessible Website Design.
>
> Web: http://www.jimbyrne.co.uk<;http://www.jimbyrne.co.uk>;
>
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/#!/jimbyrnewebdev<http://twitter.com/#!/jimbyrnewebdev>
>
> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/thirdsectorwebsitedevelopment<https://www.facebook.com/thirdsectorwebsitedevelopment>
>
>
>
> > > > >
> > > > >
About Jim Byrne
With over two decades of experience Jim Byrne is one of the UK's most experienced practitioners in the area of accessible web design. Jim provided feedback during the development of WCAG 2 as part of the Guild of Accessible Website Designers. 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.
Jim Byrne: Specialist in Accessible Website Design.
Web: http://www.jimbyrne.co.uk
Twitter: http://twitter.com/#!/jimbyrnewebdev
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/thirdsectorwebsitedevelopment
From: Birkir R. Gunnarsson
Date: Wed, Jun 10 2020 8:03PM
Subject: Re: If default navigation is not keyboard accessible does an alternative access mean it still passes AA WCAG?
← Previous message | No next message
Keep in mind that a virtual tour (video or image experience) is an
accessible alternative to text e.g. by people with cognitive
impairments who have a hard time with text.
So let's make sure not to shoot down the idea of a virtual tour
because it is not text based, it could work better for some people.
It all comes down to equivalent experiences, which is not an easy
problem to solve, to be honest.
Just the fact that people are willing to consider this is a good start.
And yes, Christina (or Kristina, too lazy to go check with my screen
reader) is right, the trick is to maintain the equivalent experiences
once in production and when people start making updates.
On 6/10/20, Jim Byrne Accessible Web Design < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> Thanks Kristina,
>
> The link to the alternative version would be on every page - no matter the
> solution chosen. If the alternative version had it's own structure - then
> it saves that one extra click each time the visitor goes to a new page, i.e.
> they don't need to click away from the default version to get the accessible
> version, every time they navigate to a new page.
>
> Re: mobile
> Good point. It is not a 360 immersive experience they have - it's a two
> dimensional tour that pans and zooms in and out.
>
> Re: 'Of course, my general question is always what benefit does the
> non-conformant virtual tour provide users that the conformant one does not?'
>
> I suppose you could ask the bigger question, âwhat's the value of a virtual
> tour'? If there's no value then there's no point in making one in the first
> place. But people are making them and I have to assume people are using
> them. Certainly the people making them must think there's a benefit to a
> virtual tour over a text description, a video or a photograph. :-)
>
> All the best,
> Jim
>
>> On 10 Jun 2020, at 15:37, England, Kristina < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>>
>> You would definitely want it on each page if you go that route as if
>> someone can enter from any page in the virtual tour through a shared link
>> or through google search, then you would want to keep the navigation item
>> consistent throughout.
>>
>> Definitely good to avoid detecting a screen reader. Not only is it an
>> invasion of privacy and takes the decision away from the user, but it also
>> goes back to vendors not understanding the overall personas. Keyboard only
>> users won't be using a screen reader. They could be using just a keyboard,
>> a switch, etc. And what kind of virtual tour is it? Is the content on the
>> virtual tour videos or are they 360 experiences? If 360, no one with a
>> vestibular disorder is going to want to use that virtual tour. They are
>> going to want the videos.
>>
>> My list of questions goes on from there, including questions about
>> cognitive load, low vision, situational personas, etc.
>>
>> Of course, my general question is always what benefit does the
>> non-conformant virtual tour provide users that the conformant one does
>> not?
>>
>> Oh, and an interesting experience is testing whatever product you are
>> looking at on mobile, especially if your audience has a lot of mobile
>> users. We found that virtual tours didn't take into consideration the
>> mobile experience and our mobile usage is much higher than desktop usage
>> based on our audience.
>>
>>
>> Kristina England
>> Senior Digital Experience and Accessibility Specialist
>> University Information Technology Services
>> UMass Office of the President
>> 333 South Street, Shrewsbury, MA 01545
>> 774-455-7874
>>
>> [UMass Logo]
>>
>>
>>
>> UITS Most Valued Behaviors: Communicate Thoughtfully + Foster a Growth
>> Mindset + Take a Holistic View + Embrace a Culture of Inquiry + Practice
>> and Protect Courage
>>
>>
>> >> From: WebAIM-Forum < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > on behalf of Jim
>> Byrne Accessible Web Design < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2020 10:07 AM
>> To: WebAIM Discussion List < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> Subject: Re: [WebAIM] If default navigation is not keyboard accessible
>> does an alternative access mean it still passes AA WCAG?
>>
>> [External Sender]
>>
>> Thanks Kristina for you thoughts on this.
>>
>> In light of your input - can I ask you what you prefer between these two
>> options (or if you don't prefer any what's better):
>>
>> At the moment each virtual room is accessible from a menu at the top of
>> the page. Should the alterantive version be accessed via a link on each of
>> the exiting pages? I.e. on every default virtual tour page there is a link
>> to the accessible version of that same page.
>>
>> Or should there be an extra item added to the existing navigation that
>> links to an alternative version of the entire tour? The alternative
>> version mimics the structure of the default version but each page is an
>> accessible video rather than the virtual tour version?
>>
>> They were talking about automatically detecting if someone was using a
>> screen reader and taking them automatically to the alternative version. I
>> discouraged them from doing that as I never think it's a good idea to take
>> control away from the visitor. They don't know why someone is using a
>> screen reader - so they could actually end up making the tour inaccessible
>> to some people and they are taking away their choice.
>>
>> If anyone disagree with my opinion on that I'm happy to hear your
>> arguments.
>>
>> Thanks for your input.
>>
>> All the best,
>> Jim
>>
>>> On 10 Jun 2020, at 14:08, England, Kristina < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>>>
>>> Reviewing the conforming alternative versions is a good starting point.
>>> However, usability of the alternative version is a huge factor. There's a
>>> virtual tour that has an alternative version that doesn't "pass" as they
>>> didn't fully understand what went into an alternative version (i.e., a
>>> knowledge of the various personas that would use that conforming
>>> version). They created a one pager that has load issues depending on the
>>> amount of videos you have and is generally exhausting to navigate as
>>> someone using keyboard only or someone with low vision (it has the
>>> heading and landmark structure for people using screen readers but,
>>> again, as a one pager, even that can be exhausting due to the length of
>>> the page). That same alternative version has gone out of sync with the
>>> non-conforming version so the only way to confirm it will stay in sync
>>> when a vendor is managing the conforming version is to cross your fingers
>>> and wait for nothing to go wrong with the conforming version. It's also
>>> extremely easy for a vendor to make a code change that impacts the
>>> conforming version and makes it non-conforming. Just some thoughts as
>>> it's actually pretty hard to ensure a conforming alternative version is
>>> kept equally effective and is maintained in the long run. Having tested
>>> alternative versions of products outside of virtual tours as well, I've
>>> yet to come across one that actually conforms (or if it does, continues
>>> to conform).
>>>
>>> >>> From: WebAIM-Forum < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > on behalf of
>>> Patrick H. Lauke < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2020 8:43 AM
>>> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> Subject: Re: [WebAIM] If default navigation is not keyboard accessible
>>> does an alternative access mean it still passes AA WCAG?
>>>
>>> [External Sender]
>>>
>>> On 10/06/2020 13:36, Jim Byrne Accessible Web Design wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I reviewed a virtual tour and found that the tour was not inaccessible
>>>> via keyboard. For example, the hotspots are invisible to keyboard and
>>>> screen reader users. When a mouse hovers over the hotspots summary
>>>> information is provided and when clicked the user is taken to a new area
>>>> on the virtual tour.
>>>>
>>>> Apparently this can't be fixed due to the technology used to create the
>>>> tour. The default virtual tour is inaccessible and can't be made
>>>> accessible.
>>>>
>>>> They propose to provide an accessible alternative to the entire tour
>>>> experience by creating accessible videos. Each area covered by the tour
>>>> would be described in a video. The captions will fully describe all
>>>> aspects of each area - both the commentary (i.e. the speech) and
>>>> everything relevant that is on the screen.
>>>>
>>>> My question is. If the video is accessible but the default tour remains
>>>> inaccessible does their virtual tour pass WCAG AA - assuming all other
>>>> checkpoints are passed?
>>>
>>> The video (provided it does indeed provide all the same
>>> information/functionality) would act as a "conforming alternate version"
>>> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#dfn-conforming-alternate-version<https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#dfn-conforming-alternate-version><https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#dfn-conforming-alternate-version<https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#dfn-conforming-alternate-version>>
>>> - so all
>>> other things being equal, all points outlined there being satisfied, yes
>>> that'd pass.
>>>
>>> P
>>> --
>>> Patrick H. Lauke
>>>
>>> https://www.splintered.co.uk/<https://www.splintered.co.uk><https://www.splintered.co.uk<https://www.splintered.co.uk>>
>>> |
>>> https://github.com/patrickhlauke<https://github.com/patrickhlauke><https://github.com/patrickhlauke<https://github.com/patrickhlauke>>
>>> https://flickr.com/photos/redux/<https://flickr.com/photos/redux><https://flickr.com/photos/redux<https://flickr.com/photos/redux>>
>>> |
>>> https://www.deviantart.com/redux<https://www.deviantart.com/redux><https://www.deviantart.com/redux<https://www.deviantart.com/redux>>
>>> twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
>>> >>> >>> http://list.webaim.org/<;http://list.webaim.org>;<http://list.webaim.org<;http://list.webaim.org>;>
>>> List archives at
>>> http://webaim.org/discussion/archives<;http://webaim.org/discussion/archives>;<http://webaim.org/discussion/archives<;http://webaim.org/discussion/archives>;>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> >>> http://list.webaim.org/<;http://list.webaim.org/>;
>>> List archives at
>>> http://webaim.org/discussion/archives<;http://webaim.org/discussion/archives>;
>>> >>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> About Jim Byrne
>> With over two decades of experience Jim Byrne is one of the UK's most
>> experienced practitioners in the area of accessible web design. Jim
>> provided feedback during the development of WCAG 2 as part of the Guild of
>> Accessible Website Designers. 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.
>>
>> Jim Byrne: Specialist in Accessible Website Design.
>>
>> Web: http://www.jimbyrne.co.uk<;http://www.jimbyrne.co.uk>;
>>
>> Twitter:
>> http://twitter.com/#!/jimbyrnewebdev<http://twitter.com/#!/jimbyrnewebdev>
>>
>> Facebook:
>> https://www.facebook.com/thirdsectorwebsitedevelopment<https://www.facebook.com/thirdsectorwebsitedevelopment>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> >> http://list.webaim.org/<;http://list.webaim.org/>;
>> List archives at
>> http://webaim.org/discussion/archives<;http://webaim.org/discussion/archives>;
>> >>
>> >> >> >> >>
>
>
>
>
> About Jim Byrne
> With over two decades of experience Jim Byrne is one of the UK's most
> experienced practitioners in the area of accessible web design. Jim provided
> feedback during the development of WCAG 2 as part of the Guild of Accessible
> Website Designers. 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.
>
> Jim Byrne: Specialist in Accessible Website Design.
>
> Web: http://www.jimbyrne.co.uk
>
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/#!/jimbyrnewebdev
>
> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/thirdsectorwebsitedevelopment
>
>
>
> > > > >
--
Work hard. Have fun. Make history.