[nfbcs] My Opinion and Experiences with Accessibility
Nicole Torcolini
ntorcolini at wavecable.com
Wed Mar 5 03:58:57 UTC 2014
Regardless of if you use IE or Firefox with JAWS, there are going to be some
problems. JAWS often loses focus in Firefox, but, if you are using a
website with a lot of ARIA, the better ARIA support is better. Also, you
can't use the JAWS cursor in Firefox, but more recent versions of JAWS kind
of have a fix for that with the convenient OCR. IE, on the other hand, does
not lose focus as much, but the ARIA support is not as good. Also, I like
being able to use Web Visum in Firefox.
-----Original Message-----
From: nfbcs [mailto:nfbcs-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Aaron Cannon
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2014 7:41 PM
To: NFB in Computer Science Mailing List
Subject: Re: [nfbcs] My Opinion and Experiences with Accessibility
Hi.
In my experience, Firefox is quite accessible with Jaws, and especially with
NVDA. So, why not support it for accessibility?
Based on anecdotal evidence, and the WebAIM surveys, I am confident that the
majority of screen reader users are using Internet Explorer.
That being said, I personally prefer and use Firefox with Jaws and NVDA. It
also appears that NVDA users are much more likely than Jaws users to use
Firefox, which is why we added support for that browser when we added NVDA
support.
However, since I do a lot of the accessibility testing, and implement many
of the fixes, I've always tried to ensure things work with Firefox as well,
even when we didn't officially support it. Most of the time, it wasn't too
difficult to pull off.
Aaron
On 3/4/14, Suzanne Germano <sgermano at asu.edu> wrote:
> Does firefox not support accessibility? I use magnification so I don't
> know what is available or not available for screen readers.
>
> I do know most people use firefox. IE sucks. I don't use safari on my
> mac or IE when I am on my windows VM.
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 4:02 PM, Aaron Cannon
> <cannona at fireantproductions.com
>> wrote:
>
>> 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%40fireantp
>> roductions.com
>> >
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/sgermano%40asu.edu
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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%40fireantpr
> oductions.com
>
_______________________________________________
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/ntorcolini%40wavecable.co
m
More information about the NFBCS
mailing list