Re: Accessible CSS / JS Bootstrap framework

http://twitter.github.com/bootstrap/ is the Bootstrap's project page, which
has reasonably extensive documentation and use examples. That Wikipedia
article perhaps shouldn't be taken as indicative of the framework's
intended use.

Speaking of forms particularly,
http://twitter.github.com/bootstrap/base-css.html#forms gives an example.
There is no "for" attribute provided in the example but the framework
hardly prevents users from applying this themselves.

In other places ARIA role attributes are used (apparently correctly by my
assessment!) to identify menus.
http://twitter.github.com/bootstrap/components.html#dropdowns gives an
example of this.

I'm sure the project would welcome review and pull requests - one good way
to get started would be to review open issues labelled accessibility:
https://github.com/twitter/bootstrap/issues?labels=accessibility&page=1&state=open


On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 10:17 AM, David Woolley
<forums@david-woolley.me.uk>wrote:

> Ian Sharpe wrote:
>
>>  Does anyone know of a fully accessible CSS / JS bootstrap framework
>> similar to twitter bootstrap for example please? Or is twitter bootstrap
>> itself fully accessible?
>>
>>
> I hadn't come across the term before, so I googled it.  It doesn't appear
> to be generic term, but simply part of the name of the "twitter" product.
>  If that is right, you need to provide a generic definition.
>
> Unfortunately, the Wikipedia article didn't enlighten me as to the
> defining characteristics.  In particular, I couldn't find any description
> of how it constrained, or for that matter, abused, HTML.
>
> The Wikipedia example didn't appear to accessible, but I don't know if
> that is because it allows bad practice or forces it (I was looking at how
> it used label).  <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**Twitter_Bootstrap<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_Bootstrap>
> >
>
> I would suspect pages don't work well CPU load) on older PCs, but it is
> possible they degrade well when the scripting is disabled.
> --
> David Woolley
> Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want.
> RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam,
> that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work.
>
>


-- 
Josh Street

http://josh.st/
+61 (0) 425 808 469