![]() ![]() While navigating through the application, screen reader software announces content to users. Visually impaired users navigate though application using screen reader software like JAWS, NVDA. XĪria is used to improve the user experience of visually impaired users. "Back to the page" will be a more convenient alternative for a screen reader, when "Close" is more significant for someone with no screen reader. In fact aria-label, in this exact situation might be used to give more context to an action:įor instance, blind people do not perceive popups like those of us with good vision, it's like a change of context. ![]() It might mean "close", "delete", "cancel", "reduce", a strange cross, a doodle, nothing.ĭespite the fact that the W3C seems to promote the aria-label rather that the title attribute here: in a similar example, you can see that the technology support does not include standard browsers : The "X" is not sufficient enough to give information to the action led by the button (think about someone with no computer knowledge). It won't be of any help to most of the people targetted by the WCAG (except screen reader users), for instance a person with intellectal disabilities. If the aria-label is one tool used by assistive technologies (like screen readers), it is not natively supported on browsers and has no effect on them. Section 508 is also being worked on to adopt WCAG 2.0.In the example you give, you're perfectly right, you have to set the title attribute. What's a good way to allow people to jump around? Headings, and now WAI-ARIA Landmarks. You can read that as: code a page so that AT can find specific parts of/on a page. ![]() (a) At least one mode of operation and information retrieval that does not require user vision shall be provided, or support for assistive technology used by people who are blind or visually impaired shall be provided. Also, remember how I said people don't realise that 1194.31 is applicable? Let's look at 1194.31(a): Their biggest arguement is usually "heh look, if Section 508 is so good, why doesn't it require headings ( )?" Well, Section 508 was derived from WCAG 1.0, which didn't have it either, so that argument is weak in my opinion. In my experience people pushing this, have limited experience actually dealing with Section 508, or they work behind a product that does testing. While I will say Section 508 is rough around the edges, I wouldn't say it is useless as some market it as. outdated and W3C/WAI WCAG 2.0 is a way better resource for improving accessibility nowadays (but of course if you must be compliant with 508, then also test for 508) Subpart 1194.31 is the functional standards, which apply to all activities if Section 508 is applicable. In terms of Section 508, this phrase is called "equivalent facilitation", which is covered in 1194.31, which no automated tester can cover. Personally, I set them around the 50% mark, particially due to the "full functionality" aspect that Felipe mentions in Mohammad's answer. I have heard numbers thrown around how well automated testers are. Maybe the Google Plug-in does as well, but would not rely upon it due to how Chrome handles and reports things to MSAA and other APIs. WAVE is a fine tool to catch low hanging fruit. WAVE and Deque WorldSpace does not satisfy this requirement. Specifically if you need to test for Section 508, it states that you have to test with AT. ![]() As Felipe said, no automated testing should be relied upon. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |