[nfbcs] My Opinion and Experiences with Accessibility

Wed Mar 5 02:33:32 UTC 2014

Unfortunately, JAWS and IE is not enough. IE is the outlier , so it has to
be JAWS and IE and JAWS and either Firefox or Chrome. This is because IE
does not provide JAWS with the same information that Firefox and Chrome do,
so JAWS has to figure it out on its own, and, JMHO, Freedom Scientific could
have done a lot better with some of the ARIA implementation.

-----Original Message-----
From: nfbcs [mailto:nfbcs-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Aaron Cannon
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2014 3:03 PM
To: NFB in Computer Science Mailing List
Subject: Re: [nfbcs] My Opinion and Experiences with Accessibility

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%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