Re: AW: "Bypass Blocks" Question

Note: I have restarted the discussion about browser implementation in a
place where browser implementers now congregate:
http://discourse.wicg.io/t/nascent-proposal-keyboard-navigation-of-headings-and-html5-landmark-elements/948?u=stevef

--

Regards

SteveF
Current Standards Work @W3C
<http://www.paciellogroup.com/blog/2015/03/current-standards-work-at-w3c/>

On 21 July 2015 at 07:00, Batusic, Mario <mario.batusic@fabasoft.com> wrote:

> Hi Deborah, All
>
> You have absolutely right with saying that the best and only correct
> keyboard navigation solution lays in the hand of browser implementors. But
> we live "now", not in the future. And all main browser developing
> organizations are members of W3C and know from the beginning about
> accessibility issues including the currently discussed one.
> When I recommended "jump links" it was a traditional answer, a still
> interim solution, but unfortunately, as you said, plug-ins and extensions
> are no solution and never will be. So the only way to conform to WCAG 2.0
> in this point currently is still the interim solution way ugly, unbeloved
> jump links.
> I hope the browser developer will soon make the situation better - they
> know about the need for years.
> Mario Batusic
> Accessibility at www.fabasoft.com
>
> > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > Von: deborah.kaplan@suberic.net [mailto:deborah.kaplan@suberic.net]
> > Gesendet: Montag, 20. Juli 2015 19:09
> > An: Phill Jenkins
> > Cc: Web Accessibility Initiative Interest Group
> > Betreff: Re: AW: "Bypass Blocks" Question
> >
> > On Mon, 20 Jul 2015, Phill Jenkins wrote:
> > > 1. It would be better to educate end users on how to install and use
> > > the plug-ins available,
> >
> > This is simply impractical. Most users outside of technology don't use
> plug-
> > ins/extensions, don't know they exist, don't know how to search for
> them, and
> > don't know how to decide which ones are safe or useful for them. This is
> unlikely
> > to change.
> >
> > The most quickly growing pool of people with accessibility needs will
> always
> > include people who are elderly, which is unlikely to be a pool of people
> who will
> > necessarily be excited about searching for and installing plug-ins and
> extensions.
> > A huge number of people with disabilities live in poverty, and these are
> not
> > necessarily people who have the resources to make it reasonable to
> prioritize
> > searching for browser extensions.
> >
> > The browsers should supply basic accessibility. This is not
> unreasonable. You
> > should not need add-ons and extensions to get accessibility.
> >
> > > So the problem seems to be "us", the accessibility community, for not
> > > posting resources about the various capabilities in the browsers,
> > > plug-in, and extensions, including JavaScript frameworks for keyboard
> > > navigation for end-users.  Below is an initial resource list.  Please
> > > copy, add-to, and post to increase the community awareness.  We are
> never
> > going to make the progress we need to by asking the millions of web
> sites to add
> > skip nav links when a relatively very few browsers and open source
> community
> > folks can solve the problem for us.  Asking web site owners to go beyond
> using
> > the structural mark-up and adding skip nav links too, that we have been
> asking
> > for for over a decade, is not working.  Lets all try to be more
> efficient in our
> > recommendations by using all the guidelines we have, including UAAG .
> >
> > We, the accessibility community, are never going to be reaching every
> person
> > with an accessibility need. It's not going to happen. It's not that we
> aren't trying
> > hard enough, and it's not that we don't have the resources -- it is that
> we cannot
> > do it.
> >
> > You are right that asking site owners to add skip nav links is not
> working. Nor
> > should they need to. If they write in semantically correct HTML 5, with
> ARIA
> > markup where appropriate, there is absolutely no reason that the user
> agents
> > couldn't create the keyboard skip navigation from that markup. We should
> not
> > be asking site owners to work around what are effectively browser bugs;
> we
> > should demand fixes in the browsers. We should not be relying on add-ons
> and
> > extensions that most users will never discover; we should demand fixes
> in the
> > browsers. As you say, with your point 2:
> >
> >
> > > 2. It would be more efficient to request more capabilities from the
> > > developers / manufacturers of the relatively very few browsers.
> >
> > A small number of browsers are the most efficient way to fix the problem.
> >
> > Deborah Kaplan
>