[nfbcs] My Opinion and Experiences with Accessibility

[Aaron Cannon]

Hi Dave and all.

While I completely agree with your second point  in principal, putting
this in to practice could result in a site which is only technically
accessible, but not actually accessible.

Most organizations which I've helped with accessibility
(understandably) have wanted to make their sites actually accessible.
However, they've also not wanted or had the resources to support a
wide variety of browser/screen reader combinations.  So what's usually
happened is that they've picked the most popular screen reader (or if
we're lucky screen readers), which usually end up being Jaws and
Voiceover, and test them with their site in IE and Safari
respectively.

The company I'm working for now has just decided to begin tentatively
supporting NVDA in Firefox, in addition to our current support of
Voiceover with Safari and Jaws with IE.  Hopefully this won't create
much more work for the devs.

The only way out of this mess (IMHO) is for browser vendors to
collaborate more closely to standardize their accessibility APIs, and
for screen reader manufacturers to work more effectively to insure
that their products are supporting all the browser API has to offer.
Given the fact that there are still differences in how browsers render
CSS and support JavaScript, I'm surprised that the accessibility
support is as consistent as it is.

Aaron

On 3/4/14, David Andrews <dandrews at visi.com> wrote:
> I don't want to sound argumentative, but I don't agree with
> everything below.  First, this is a very blind-centric view of web
> accessibility.  There is more to it then us, and many people loose
> sight (no pun intended,) of this point.  Secondly, I don't think it
> is reasonable for a developer to have to test with all screen
> readers.  She/he would also need to test each screen reader with all
> possible browsers.  Everything, unfortunately, behaves
> differently.  All a developer can do is code to standards, like WCAG
> 2.0.  Otherwise she will drive herself crazy if you try to code for
> screen reader bugs or poor implementations.
>
> Dave
>
>
> At 10:38 PM 3/3/2014, you wrote:
>>This email is in response to some of the threads that have been going on
>>over the last two or three days. I have separated it out, though, because
>> I
>>hope that people will read it in it's own light instead of in the direct
>>shadow of some of the other messages.
>>This message might get a little lengthy, and I might have to finish it
>>another time. The following are my opinions, which are based off of my
>>experiences. Feel free to dispute them, but I ask that you please do it in
>> a
>>polite manner. So, here goes...
>>Oh, and one other thing. All of this is in reference to web accessibility,
>>since that is the area with which I am most accessible.
>>
>>It may be hard to define accessibility, but I think that it is possible to
>>have at least some sort of definition. To start, accessibility means that
>> it
>>can be used with a screen reader. Okay, so what does "can be used with a
>>screen reader" mean? This might not be all of it, but, as a start for
>>defining  guide lines for developers, it is better than nothing:
>>1. Everything that can be achieved with the mouse can be achieved with
>> only
>>the keyboard
>>2. Focus is handled correctly
>>3. ARIA roles and attributes are used and maintained correctly
>>4. HTML elements are used correctly
>>This might not seem like a lot, but these four areas have a lot of
>> content.
>>For example, JMHO, number 3 covers issues like notifying the screen reader
>>when an area of the web page changes using aria-live. Number 4 could
>> include
>>things like using headings when appropriate and not using tables purely
>> for
>>layout purposes with stuff that is not data.
>>
>>I don't think that developers deliberately decide to make their websites
>>inaccessible. A lot of developers don't know how to make their websites
>>accessible. Not everyone knows about ARIA, and, even if they do, there is
>>not a good way to verify that all of the ARIA stuff is correct without
>> using
>>a screen reader. Even if a screen reader is used to test a website, most
>>sighted developers don't have the screen reader proficiency that we do,
>> and,
>>even if they do, they might only have access to certain screen readers, so
>>there is no way to verify that it works with all screen readers. I can't
>>tell you how often I test something with screen reader x, and the
>> developer
>>says "I don't understand. I tried it with y or z, and it worked." Usually,
>>once I explain, they understand, but it is extremely frustrating for them
>>when they put in the time and effort to test, but find out that it does
>> not
>>work with a certain screen reader. To that end, some of the accessibility
>>problems are because screen readers act different and implement the ARIA
>>spec differently. I'm not suggesting that all screen readers should be the
>>same, but there are certain things that would make things easier if the
>> were
>>consistent across screen readers. I also often run into the case where the
>>developer has tried, having good intensions, but has misunderstood what
>>certain ARIA attributes do. JMHO, the ARIA spec needs to give more
>>information.
>>Accessibility might not be the absolute first thing on the list when a
>>product is created, but it needs to be on there fairly early, long before
>>dogfood or even fish food. Accessibility is not something that can be
>> added
>>later. The analogy that I like to use is adding ramps and elevators to a
>>building after it is built. It just does not work, or not that well. Even
>>though accessibility may not affect that many people, it needs to be
>> treated
>>the same way that security is treated; it needs to be a "launch blocker".
>>Okay, so maybe it is not realistic to expect a product to be absolutely
>>perfect in terms of accessibility before it sees the light of day. Then
>> how
>>do you determine what is enough? You make levels of accessibility,
>> starting
>>simply with item number one on the list above. No, it's often not enough
>> for
>>good screen reader support, and it usually keeps people from coding
>>themselves into a corner. There could be different levels of
>> accessibility.
>>If a product is large, then different levels could be assigned to
>> different
>>parts of the product based on how often that part is used.
>>In order for a product to be accessible, it sometimes takes the entire
>>company being committed to accessibility. Sometimes, developers want to
>> make
>>the product accessibility, but they think or have been told to focus their
>>efforts in other areas. So, often, the best approach is a top down
>> approach.
>>If someone high enough in the chain can be convinced that accessibility is
>>important, then he/she will tell the people whom they manage to work more
>> on
>>accessibility.
>>Unfortunately, there is no quick and dirty guide to making a website
>>accessibility. If you want to make it really accessible the rather easy
>> way,
>>then just use native HTML, but, in today's world, that just does not
>> scale.
>>Developers need to understand ARIA roles and attributes, keyboard
>> handling,
>>and focus handling. They also need to understand what screen readers
>> cannot
>>do, such as detect most CSS or recognize images.
>>Finally, yes, often, the best way to test a product for accessibility is
>> to
>>have users with disabilities try it. If a company is large enough, there
>> may
>>be a fair number of employees with disabilities. Also, there are sometimes
>>employees who do not have disabilities but who work on accessibility who
>>know how to use assistive technology, but these are probably not as
>>prevalent in smaller companies.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> nfbcs mailing list
> nfbcs at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbcs_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> nfbcs:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbcs_nfbnet.org/cannona%40fireantproductions.com
>