Re: Updates to Understanding 1.4.11 part 2

Hi Alastair and all,

On 6/13/18, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com> wrote:

> Overall, I think the main options are:
>
> * Treat default focus styles as a user-agent issue, if authors don’t set the outline / focus-
> style then don’t fail it.
> * Highlight in the understanding that certain browsers default focus styles may not meet
> this SC, and that should be considered as part of accessibility-supported whether you
> deal with it.

We do have a precedent here with Success Criterion 1.4.13: Content on
Hover or Focus and the User Agent problem.

I tried to no avail to include the title attribute in 1.4.13. But in
the end went with the group consensus to exclude it because it was
controlled by the User Agent and was told we could tackle it in
Silver. The 1.4.13 exception is:

"Exception: The visual presentation of the additional content is
controlled by the user agent and is not modified by the author."

The 1.4.13 note even says:
"Examples of additional content controlled by the user agent include
browser tooltips created through use of the HTML title attribute."

So I'd say we should go with the 1.4.13 precedent and Alastair's first
bullet: "Treat default focus styles as a user-agent issue, if authors
don't set the outline / focus-style then don’t fail it."

Let's be consistent with how we handle the User Agent problem in  SC
1.4.13 and 1.4.11. If it is a Silver issue in one SC, it should be
Silver issue in both.

My 2 cents.

Kindest Regards,
Laura

On 6/13/18, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com> wrote:
>> The technology relied upon in WCAG is the tools that users are expected to
>> use to get the benefits of the WCAG conformance.
>
> That isn’t how it is defined in WCAG though, part 5 is “web content
> technologies”:
> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#conformance-required
>
> The user-agent part is in the optional components, “A list of user agents,
> including assistive technologies that were used to test the content.”
>
> From the thread on issue 298 you pointed to the combination of 1 (satisfying
> A & AA criteria) and 4 (accessibility supported ways).
>
> However, I think this is a bit different, it is not like this:
>> There was no assistive technology and no initiative by apple to do
>> anything about that, and back then is was basically JAWS, Windows and IE
>> ...
>
> All the browsers have a default focus style, it is just that some of them
> don’t meet this new criteria.
>
> Then as Patrick said:
>> There's of course a slippery slope issue: user agents/ATs on certain
>> platforms are quite limited or buggy - but normatively mandating that
>> authors need to code workaround solutions to be able to pass WCAG shifts
>> the onus purely on the developers, when really user agents/ATs should get
>> their house in order under UAAG requirements. this makes developers
>> responsible for browser bugs, screen reader bugs, etc
>
> Currently we are shifting the onus onto developers, in fact the examples we
> found of people using the default focus-styles were accessibility-aware
> organisations trying to do it right!
>
> If bugs are raised on those browsers and they fix it later, we’ve wasted a
> lot of people’s time.
>
> And, as John said:
>> most designers I've met want to control all aspects of the design, on all
>> platforms…
>
> Those people would not hit this issue, they would have over-ridden the
> outline anyway.
>
>
>> We simply cannot require content to work on all or many combinations.
>
> I’m trying to think of WCAG 2.0 SC that could have been in a similar
> position. All I can think of is 1.4.5, around “If the technologies being
> used can achieve the visual presentation, text is used to convey information
> rather than images of text”, did people account for browser support?
>
> Or for Bypass Blocks, would you fail a skip link that didn’t work in
> Safari/Chrome because of their bugs?
> Overall, I think the main options are:
>
>   *   Treat default focus styles as a user-agent issue, if authors don’t set
> the outline / focus-style then don’t fail it.
>   *   Highlight in the understanding that certain browsers default focus
> styles may not meet this SC, and that should be considered as part of
> accessibility-supported whether you deal with it.
>
> Cheers,
>
> -Alastair
>
> PS.
>> Hmmm.... when was the last lawsuit that had any effect in the UK?
>
> There have been some, but they have all been settled out of court (we
> sometimes get asked to assess sites for these cases). As a complaint has to
> be started by someone with a disability, it is generally quite practical
> issues that get raised, WCAG is a fall-back method if the arguments get to
> the point of ‘what is reasonable’, or to give a more general assessment than
> what that person found.
>


-- 
Laura L. Carlson

Received on Wednesday, 13 June 2018 15:32:51 UTC