All geek questions in one place

WCAG vs real users

To make sites accessible, my policy so far has been to follow WCAG - no more and no less. I assumed that WCAG was complete and complete. Thus, I suggested that if I followed all my recommendations, my sites would be impeccable in terms of accessibility. After talking with several Internet users with disabilities, I wondered if I should review this policy.

Real users told me that the following technologies are absolutely essential for any website based on their experience:

  • Style Interface for JavaScript. For example. to switch between black and white and white and black color schemes.
  • Alternative style sheets. Same goal as JS switch, but different implementation.
  • High contrast CSS border around all buttons. (Not enough color contrasting color).
  • Do not allow DOM updates without user intervention (for example, due to a remote event) even with aria-live="polite".
  • No CSS background colors anywhere. (Really.)

Not every user has cited each of these methods. This is just a combination of sets of offers made by all users. There were other amazing suggestions; these are only the ones that I remember.

What is remarkable about all of these proposals is that, as far as I can tell, they are not WCAG recommendations. What do you make of this dissonance?

, , , . . , , , , , .

, , WCAG? WCAG ? , , WCAG ?

WCAG -? , - , , , ?

Dryden Long

, , WCAG . , , - WCAG, , . WCAG .

+4
2

1. WCAG 2.0

WCAG 2.0 . . 200 , , -, .. , ( , , , , ..). WCAG 1.0. W3C, ( ) .

WCAG 2.0 , :

, , (AAA), , , , . [...] , -, , .

, , , . , , , , .

2.

WCAG 2.0 , , ( "" " WCAG 2.0" ). sucess , WCAG 2.0, , , .

. . (, HTML- PDF), , , .

:

, , , () . , , , ( ) , , IPTC IIM ( ), 1.1.1, ( ) .

3.

, , , "" (, ). , . : , , . , - , . , , , , - , ( ) , , - -.

- : - -, , - .. .

. , "", : ", alt-space, , ", " JAWS , ". , , , , : " " k ", King Station".

, . , "". . , , , ( ).

, , . , C22 CSS . ( ​​ ):

- , CSS . . , , , .

, ? , . , , . , .

4. ,

, WCAG 2.0 . , WCAG 2.0

CSS , , , .

, , :

  • WCAG 2.0 , . , ( , ).
  • WCAG 2.0 . , WCAG 2.0. , , , , . , , .
  • , - ( , ). , , , , , , . , , , .

, . , , , CSS, , , -, - . , , , , A/B.

WCAG -? , , - . , . , , , , , .

+11

, WCAG 2 . , , .

WCAG2, . , , ems , , IE , , ( IE ); , , , , Windows . , WCAG " " - , . : hover : focus, , .

WCAG2 -, . "", "", , , . , .

/ - , , WCAG2, - . , , , , , .

, , , ; , , . , , .

+2

Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/1524156/

More articles:


All Articles