The problem is that sometimes employers don't allow installation of
anything but their permitted apps, & if that combination doesn't work,
then the person involved is screwed, to use the polite & edited
version.
A lot of web developers seem to be going to these graphical
checkboxes--they look in every way like checkboxes to the sighted
person, but not at all like them to a screen reader. That applies to
radio buttons as well.
It seems like that, in Chrome browsers, when image descriptions are
turned on, the browser tries to get an image description when the box
is checked, because it thinks it sees a graphic, whereas it just says
nothing when it isn't. I havent tested this out enough yet to be
entirely sure of this, but I'll be working on it more throughout the
coming days, as I'm facing these a lot.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On 7/4/21, Gene <gsasner@...> wrote:
I’m not disagreeing that people need to know how to use more than one
browser and screen-reader for such situations. It isn’t difficult to know
other browsers or screen-readers to the extent necessary for that purpose.
I’m saying that, in a case like this, where a major site is not usable by a
widely used screen-reader and browser or class of browsers, that site is not
accessible. I’m not talking about some minor function, I’m talking about
not usable for one or more major functions.
If you have a different definition of accessible than the recognized one,
that’s a different question. but if Amazon argued that its site is
accessible because it works with Firefox and JAWS even if it doesn’t work
with NVDA and Chrome-based browsers that isn’t accessibility. It can be
used but it isn’t properly accessible.
Gene
-----Original Message-----
From: Brian Vogel
Sent: Sunday, July 04, 2021 6:40 PM
To: nvda@nvda.groups.io
Subject: Re: [nvda] cannot check boxes.
On Sun, Jul 4, 2021 at 07:24 PM, Gene wrote:
But the definition of accessible is not stated in such a way that a site
that works with Firefox and not with chrome-based browsers would be
considered accessible.
-
But the reality is that some sites do, or do not, play well with a given
class of browser. And just because they don't play well with one does not
make them inaccessible in any meaningful way.
I don't give a damn about what the abstract definition of accessible might
be. I understand that in real life even software that has been developed
with virtually any accessibility standard you can think of in mind will
rarely hit a snag under specific circumstances, and those are, while not
exactly common, not uncommon in regard to websites and web browsers.
This isn't about the semantics of accessibility on my side, but practical
considerations based on real world experiences. The definition of
accessibility seems to be what you've been and continue to be focused on.
--
Brian - Windows 10, 64-Bit, Version 21H1, Build 19043
I do not understand why some seek to separate a person from their actions.
The self is composed of an individual’s thoughts, actions, and expression,
which are contained in and actuated by the body. What you do and say is the
clearest indicator of who you are.
~ Brian Vogel
--
Subscribe to a WordPress for Newbies Mailing List by sending a message to:
wp4newbs-request@... with 'subscribe' in the Subject field OR by
visiting the list page at
http://www.freelists.org/list/wp4newbs& check out my sites at www.brightstarsweb.com & www.mysitesbeenhacked.com
