Archive index

A11y Slackers Gitter Channel Archive 13th of November 2015

What fresh hell is THIS now? - Patrick Lauke
  1. powrsurg
    14:21
    yeah, I've been seeing people post here about separate, accessible sites. That seems weird to me
  2. MichielBijl
    17:02
    What seems weird @powrsurg?
  3. powrsurg
    17:03
    Why not just make it accessible from the start? Separate but equal doesn't work ....
  4. powrsurg
    17:04
    but that brings things back to my original point about what do guidelines for 508 actually look for in relation to animation?
  5. garcialo
    17:07
    Section 508 §1194.21 (h) When animation is displayed, the information shall be displayable in at least one non-animated presentation mode at the option of the user.
  6. MichielBijl
    17:10
    Question for all. I had a lengthy discussion with a colleague about disabilities and how people with disabilities use things like the internet. Our discussion stranded a bit at one issue; descriptions for video. He said that it should not be mandatory to include a description for the video to benefit blind people, as they cannot see the video itself. I on the other hand, said a description of the video would benefit blind people; they would at least know what the video was about.
  7. zakim-robot
    17:37
    [thecristen] That’s an interesting question. Wouldn’t a description benefit pretty much anyone who can read it? Also blind people would still be able to listen to the video so a description would be helpful to decide whether to press ‘play'
  8. zakim-robot
    17:38
    [thecristen] Unless there’s no audio in the video i guess
  9. powrsurg
    17:39
    @garcialo http://www.digitalgov.gov/2013/06/26/making-multimedia-section-508-compliant-and-accessible/ "Give users the choice of turning off animations and displaying information from the animations in other method;"
  10. powrsurg
    17:41
    And what defines animation truly? Should you provide some feature that will do things like disable all CSS keyframes/animation, disable any JavaScript that causes movement like making an element slide up/down, or causing the page to scroll smoothly? Basically letting the user reset to the type of changes one could make to a web page back in 2000 (that is, things happening instantly)?
  11. garcialo
    17:43
    Well, parallax effects can cause issues for some users. www.webaxe.org/vestibular-issues-parallax-design/
  12. powrsurg
    17:56
    right, that I can understand. But do you really need a control to allow users to disable something like using jQuery's slideDown feature to replace it with show()?
  13. powrsurg
    17:59
    Parallax I can understand causing issues. But how far do you need to go to truly claim compliance with these rules? Do we lose 508 compliance simply from having a smooth transition to hide/show an element rather than have it be done instantaneously?
  14. garcialo
    18:00
    Well, that's a problem with the current 508; it's way too vague.
  15. garcialo
    18:00
    And way too open to interpretation and too closed to change.
  16. garcialo
    18:01
    ...although the way too open to interpretation is good when we want to have 508 guidelines say more than they actually say =p
  17. powrsurg
    18:08
    Right. These things just need to actually be said some time. =/
  18. garcialo
    18:09
    I'm guessing though that the ultimate decision would end up being with a judge...since it's law and the only time it would really be tested is if there were complaints made by users that were ignored by the developing company and it got bad enough that it needed to go to court.
  19. powrsurg
    18:10
    The other day I realized we had one spot in the site that had audio in the background that we needed to allow a control to pause and figured I'd double check guidelines to see if there was anything else I was forgetting about and saw talk of animations and I wondered how if transitional things like that were truly animations that need toggles or disabling or a whole other site thing ...
  20. garcialo
    18:12
    If it's not something that's high traffic or high visibility, I wouldn't worry about it too much. Not saying it should be ignored; just deprioritized.
  21. powrsurg
    18:15
    Yeah, we have been doing a lot of testing and stuff to make things actually better, and haven't heard any complaints, but I see my boss making proposals to various places saying we have 508 compliance and things like that and I want us to actually have a decent site that actually meets guidelines
  22. powrsurg
    18:15
    I've made sure that any time a person can upload an image they can also set alt text for it, upload audio (currently we don't have video) then they can put in a text narration ...
  23. garcialo
    18:16
    Then, I would suggest secretly using WCAG AA instead of 508. Maybe add Paragraph M from 1194.22, but for the most part WCAG will cover 508 guidelines.
  24. garcialo
    18:18
    Then, if asked about the animation thing again, you can say "Well 508 is a little vague on it but interpretations of it include exemptions if the animation isn't automatic and doesn't last more than 5 seconds."
  25. zakim-robot
    18:35
    [fstorr] According to the Access Board, when the 508 refresh eventually happens it’s going to incorporate WCAG 2.0. If I had to make a decision now, I’d go with WCAG 2.0 rather than 508. http://www.access-board.gov/guidelines-and-standards/communications-and-it/about-the-ict-refresh/overview-of-the-proposed-rule
  26. zakim-robot
    18:35
    [fstorr] s/when/if
  27. garcialo
    18:35
    Yeah, that's another reason to secretly use WCAG AA now
  28. garcialo
    18:35
    Then when the change happens, you can say "we're good." =)
  29. zakim-robot
    18:49
    [fstorr] As opposed to all the other companies who proclaim 508 compliance who are going to have something of a surprise :simple_smile:
  30. StommePoes
    18:54
    Me, I would LOVE to have a Big Red Button I could click to kill all animations
  31. MichielBijl
    18:54
    @thecristen wouldn't users benefit from a description regardless of audio. Say for example you're working on a presentation about ant hills. There could be a video showing an ant colony inside a glass panel thing that has no audio. Sure the title could help, but a title doesn't have to be a description. If you would compare it to something like figcaption. Wouldn't a description be valuable information to have in such a scenario? Regardless of ability.
  32. StommePoes
    18:55
    Mostly because they're so as balls. Sliding pages around can be an accessibility benefit: for cognative reasons, can make it clearer to a user where they came from or went. Me, if I watch one more snail-paced jquer slide-into-existence I'm gonna scream.
  33. StommePoes
    18:56
    But, that's user pref, not per se accessibilty. There was an article on iOS removing from a new version their "turn off animations" and some of the people interviewed didn't need much to pass out or puke.
  34. StommePoes
    18:56
    I should try to find it for you, it might help determine how much == enough.
  35. StommePoes
    18:58
    I think it might have been this one http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/sep/27/ios-7-motion-sickness-nausea
  36. zakim-robot
    18:59
    [thecristen] it would certainly be beneficial
  37. StommePoes
    18:59
    @powrsurg "Is Edge somewhat usable from an AT standpoint with today's updates?" only if the various AT have in the meantime found new ways to work with the new-ish UIA. That's a lot of the problem, MSAA is being phased out.
  38. StommePoes
    19:00
    So it hits not only edge the browser, but edge the file system
  39. MichielBijl
    19:02
    @StommePoes you and me both.
  40. MichielBijl
    19:02
    About the button.
  41. MichielBijl
    19:04
    @thecristen I agree. My colleague doesn't though. I'm not on a path to convince him (but I might just be lying to myself about that). I would like to hear opinions from different people though. So thank you for your opinion!
  42. zakim-robot
    19:06
    [thecristen] You mentioned he doesn’t agree it should be mandatory, which is distinct from disagreeing with the concept entirely… that’s a bit of a slippery slope argument though (why make anything mandatory? there’s way to get around anything or make arguments for either position etc)
  43. zakim-robot
    19:06
    [thecristen] mandatory or not, usability is a good thing and maybe one day your colleague will realize that :thumbsup::skin-tone-3:
  44. garcialo
    19:27
    CSS isn't my strength; are animations done in a way that they could easily be turned off by some javascript in a bookmarklet or an extension or something?
  45. MichielBijl
    19:36
    @thecristen: true, that is why our discussion stalled after two hours.
  46. garcialo
    19:36
    Just got my CSUN Talk Acceptance email =)
  47. garcialo
    19:37
    cc @stevefaulkner
  48. MichielBijl
    19:37
    @garcialo yes.
  49. MichielBijl
    19:37
    Add *,*::before,*::after { animation-play-state: paused; }.
  50. MichielBijl
    19:37
    Call it a day and be happy.
  51. garcialo
    19:38
    Awesome. Maybe someone should make a bookmarklet or extension =p
  52. MichielBijl
    19:38
    You could actually add transition-duration 0.001s to that.
  53. MichielBijl
    19:38
    That way transitionend would still fire in browsers that support it.
  54. MichielBijl
    19:38
    I don't know the first thing about bookmarlets, so don't look at me :p
  55. MichielBijl
    19:39
    STUPID SMILEYS
  56. MichielBijl
    19:41
    Maybe that person can make a bookmarklet that kills smileys on guitar too.
  57. powrsurg
    20:26
    honestly, from a CSS standpoint it would be relatively easy to disable something if you literally had a button/state to disable all animations. Add a class to the body element and then a universal selector with !important that can disable whatever you'd like. It's just the JavaScript based animations that wouldn't work well
  58. StommePoes
    20:38
    I like that idea
  59. MichielBijl
    20:48
    @powrsurg remove green sock crap and you're done :p
  60. StommePoes
    20:51
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhnIZh0xwk0&feature=youtu.be