Re: WCAG compliance question

Here's my take: With CSS disabled, users must be able to view, reach,
activate and interact with all necessary elements, data and information on
the page. You need to make sure that functionality isn't written into the
CSS layer. If the page is usable and no functionality is lost with or
without a screen reader and when browser-zoomed to 200% and/or when used
with a magnification tool, if users can access everything using a
keyboard-only, it is accessible to WCAG 2.0 level A.

Thanks for your attention.

Regards,
Heather



On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 11:39 AM, Mitchell Evan <mtchllvn@gmail.com> wrote:

> I agree this is technically not a WCAG conformance issue.
>
> I'll address the user experience.
>
> > antiquated techiques like turning off CSS
>
> I agree these are medieval techniques.
>
> The specific user needs were not yet mentioned in this thread. Turning off
> CSS is a strategy of some users with low vision or print disabilities.
> User-defined style sheets (with or without turning off author CSS) is
> another such strategy.
>
> If an author expects users to turn off CSS as the only effective text
> adaptation strategy available for a site, it's like asking a person to
> perform their own amputation. It's easy enough for the user to do it but
> the results are not nice.
>
> User-defined style sheets are more like a person performing their own
> organ transplant. If a hundred people in the world have managed to do this
> successfully, it means many thousands still need it and don't have it.
>
> Today there are user agent technologies that for some users are easier and
> better. Reader mode is mainstream. There are also assistive technologies
> that simplify the page (I don't have a good list so I won't mention a
> specific commercial product).
>
> Are any web authors out there testing how their sites work in these text
> adaptation technologies?
>
> Are there users or user advocates who can speak to the strengths and
> limitations of these text adaptation technologies? The tech side of the
> accessibility ecosystem needs to be aware of exactly why some users are
> still left stranded in the middle ages.
>
> Mitchell Evan
>
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016, 7:36am Phill Jenkins <pjenkins@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>> > On 26/02/2016 12:25, Richard (Userite) wrote:
>> > Yes the site needs to be accessible with CSS enabled AND with it
>> disabled.
>>
>> > On 26/022016, "Patrick H. Lauke" wrote
>> > I wouldn't say it's as clear cut as that, just as similar statements
>> > like "a site must work even when JavaScript is disabled" aren't exactly
>> > true either. Neither of these statements can be found anywhere in the
>> > letter (nor the spirit, I'd argue) of WCAG 2.0.
>>
>> Patrick, I agree with the spirit of your statement.  In fact the
>> reference from Charles earlier in this thread explicity (normative
>> language) does mention JavaScript and CSS.
>>
>> > as I read WCAG 2.0 it allows conformance claims to rely on particular
>> > technology - See point 5 at
>> > https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#conformance-claims.
>>
>> The following are not my word or my intrepretation, but quoting from WCAG
>> .20 itself:
>>
>> 5. A list of the *Web content technologies*
>> <https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#technologydef> *relied upon*
>> <https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#reliedupondef>.
>>
>> *        Example: *Some common examples of Web content technologies
>> include HTML, CSS, SVG, PNG, PDF, Flash, and JavaScript.
>>
>>         relied upon (technologies that are)
>>         the content would not *conform*
>> <https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#conformancedef>if that *technology*
>> <https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#technologydef>is turned off or is not
>> supported
>>
>> Individual interpretation are just that, that individuals opinion, and
>> often are not backed up by consesnsus arrived normative language of the
>> WCAG 2.0 standard itself. I personally do not like the debating, but the
>> fact remains that almost all web apps (not static web pages) require
>> JavaScript and CSS in order to function.  We don't go around demanding the
>> same with Windows desktop application or MacBook applications, that they
>> run without the supporting underlying technology.  I belive people are
>> continuing to incorrectly place the burden on the user, instead of on the
>> browser or platform, when suggesting antiquated techiques like turning off
>> CSS or JavaScript.
>> _______________
>> Regards,
>> Phill Jenkins,
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From:        "Patrick H. Lauke" <redux@splintered.co.uk>
>> To:        w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
>> Date:        02/26/2016 07:16 AM
>> Subject:        Re: WCAG compliance question
>>
>>
>>
>> On 26/02/2016 12:25, Richard (Userite) wrote:
>> > Yes the site needs to be accessible with CSS enabled AND with it
>> disabled.
>>
>> I wouldn't say it's as clear cut as that, just as similar statements
>> like "a site must work even when JavaScript is disabled" aren't exactly
>> true either. Neither of these statements can be found anywhere in the
>> letter (nor the spirit, I'd argue) of WCAG 2.0.
>>
>> > Developers can use CSS to "hide" messages that are aimed at people who
>> > use screen readers. For example most pages have a top navigation bar
>> > which requires a heading so that blind users can find it easily. However
>> > to stop the heading actually showing up on the page for sighted users
>> > CSS has been used such as, for example,  either {display:none;} or
>> > {position:left, -1999px;}
>> >
>> > It is not that visual users are getting less than blind users, just that
>> > additional help is provided for screen readers.
>> >
>> > The fact that your Jaws does not pick up this hidden text suggests that
>> > the CSS has been written incorrectly.
>>
>> The "other things" mentioned in the original post may also well be
>> dialog boxes, alerts, error messages etc which are intentionally styled
>> with display:none to not be visible / absent from the DOM that's exposed
>> to AT, and will only be made visible when appropriate. So again, it's
>> not a clear-cut situation - without seeing the actual specific case,
>> it's not possible to make generalised statements about things being
>> incorrect.
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>
> Mitchell Evan
> mtchllvn@gmail.com
> +1 (510) 375-6104
>



-- 


*Heather Durham *Accessibility SQA, HEd

Pearson
2154 E. Commons Ave.
Suite 4000
Centennial, CO  80122
USA

*Learn more at pearson.com <http://pearson.com>*

[image: Pearson]