Re: New SC: Avoid disrupting working accessibility features

The resistance I face if I marked it as a failure of 2.4.1 is an
argument: another technique has been relied upon to meet that SC. So
that SC has been satisfied.
Yet, if I flag that skip nav item, I am told to mark it as a best
practice or an issue that is low in priority level.
That does not help users.
Content that is meant to be more accessible because someone has spent
time on incorporating accessibility features ends up confusing the
user.
So this is an instance that disrupts correctly implemented working
accessibility feature.
Thanks,
Sailesh


On 7/15/16, Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk> wrote:
> On 15/07/2016 19:18, Sailesh Panchang wrote:
>> I like: "4.1.3 Non-interference of AT: Content does not interfere with
>> default functionality of platform level assistive technology"
>> But what I would like that S508 type  of requirement to cover are
>> situations where techniques are  misapplied or incorrectly /
>> incompletely applied especially when another technique has been
>> implemented that  meets an SC. As a result of haphazard implementation
>> of another technique that breaks accessibility experience for the user
>> and leads to confusion.
>>
>> Consider just one example:
>> Page has an h1 for main content just after start of div with role=main.
>> Yet there is a skip to content link that has its target set elsewhere
>> on the page.
>> So while h-tag or landmark is used for bypassing blocks (2.4.1) and
>> exposing page structure (1.3.1), the skip to content link (not relied
>> upon) only results in confusing users.
>
> But that (even in the 508 sense, I'd say) is not a case of "disrupt or
> disable"...more of a "the author messed up" to be noted under 2.4.1, no?
>
> P
> --
> Patrick H. Lauke
>
> www.splintered.co.uk | https://github.com/patrickhlauke
> http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | http://redux.deviantart.com
> twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
>
>

Received on Friday, 15 July 2016 19:41:42 UTC