Archive index

A11y Slackers Gitter Channel Archive 9th of February 2016

What fresh hell is THIS now? - Patrick Lauke
  1. MichielBijl
    Feb 09 09:33
    Are there any accessible @Twitter applications for OS X? I want to invest in a consistent user experience and company that supports #a11y.
  2. jkva
    Feb 09 09:35
    I've heard good things about tweetbot, but I'm not sure how it scores on a11y.
  3. MichielBijl
    Feb 09 09:39
    Crappy
  4. jkva
    Feb 09 09:39
    Drat
  5. MichielBijl
    Feb 09 09:39
    I think I will contact them about it and offer to help.
  6. jkva
    Feb 09 09:39
    ++
  7. MichielBijl
    Feb 09 10:36
    Seems the official Twitter application has decent accessibility support, but it remains to be seen what they'll do when the weird new algorithm to screw over users hits.
  8. powrsurg
    Feb 09 14:25
    I dunno what would bother me more -- longer tweets or the non-chronological tweets
  9. MichielBijl
    Feb 09 14:27
    Combination of the two?
  10. MichielBijl
    Feb 09 14:27
    I've started using the Tweetbot desktop to avoid the dialog infected website once called Twitter.com
  11. MichielBijl
    Feb 09 14:31
    s/desktop/desktop app/
  12. powrsurg
    Feb 09 14:32
    Yeah, Twitter.com is bad. I have an app for viewing my feeds and I'm training myself to use Firefox's search box to search Twitter specifically rather than hitting the website and then searching since the site takes forever to load and anything I type in search there is lost once the page does load ...
  13. powrsurg
    Feb 09 14:36
    And it looks like I missed the rest of the discussion on alt text while I was at my doctors yesterday ...
  14. powrsurg
    Feb 09 14:37
    never heard of the generator-unable-to-provide-required-alt attribute. Interesting
  15. powrsurg
    Feb 09 14:37
    Does Siri read alt text when it reads a web page (Siri can do that, can't she?)?
  16. powrsurg
    Feb 09 14:39
    If she does then we might get more traction when building applications if it was called Siri text in applications instead of alt text because then you have to explain accessibility and/or SEO to them, but if they think they're doing it to make it work better with an iOS device it might get more people paying attention
  17. MichielBijl
    Feb 09 14:41
    @powrsurg: you mean VoiceOver?
  18. MichielBijl
    Feb 09 14:42
    Siri≠VoiceOver
  19. powrsurg
    Feb 09 14:42
    No, I mean Siri. I know VoiceOver is the general screen reader, but I thought you could tell Siri "read this page to me" and it would do it (where it really is probably just turning on VoiceOver, but most people don't know that)
  20. MichielBijl
    Feb 09 14:42
    Ah, you mean the speak this thing feature.
  21. MichielBijl
    Feb 09 14:43
    Let me check
  22. MichielBijl
    Feb 09 14:44
    Hmm, where did they hid that feature…
  23. MichielBijl
    Feb 09 14:45
    Found it
  24. powrsurg
    Feb 09 14:46
    okay, just googled it ... I guess you can only make Siri read a part of a page that you highlight and not the whole page
  25. powrsurg
    Feb 09 14:46
    guess I just assumed Siri was smarter
  26. MichielBijl
    Feb 09 14:47
    The speak selection feature doesn't speak alt text.
  27. MichielBijl
    Feb 09 14:47
    Even if you include an image in the selection.
  28. powrsurg
    Feb 09 14:49
    well there goes that idea
  29. MichielBijl
    Feb 09 14:49
    I'd record a video, but can't find a lightning cable…
  30. powrsurg
    Feb 09 14:51
    that's okay, I believe people in this room :)
  31. powrsurg
    Feb 09 15:24
    ... either I'm doing a11y too much, or not enough, when I try to look up to see if there is any recommended minimum for audio bit rate ...
  32. MichielBijl
    Feb 09 15:27
    Can't imagine there'd be one.
  33. MichielBijl
    Feb 09 15:27
    There is no minimum quality for images…
  34. powrsurg
    Feb 09 15:27
    yeah, once I thought about it it seemed silly.
  35. MichielBijl
    Feb 09 15:27
    I'd be stumped to find out if there was.
  36. powrsurg
    Feb 09 15:29
    I was just seeing that the audio was getting incomprehensible when we decreased it enough. That started the thought. But you're right, it's not like one couldn't set a jpeg's quality level to like, 10 ... it'd still suck as an image but that wouldn't make it anything different ...
  37. zakim-robot
    Feb 09 15:31
    [jeankap] My significant other - an audio engineer - says std bitrate for video captioning should be 48k. All you really need for voiceover is 22 though. It's considered better to meet the minimum of the medium you're working with.
  38. powrsurg
    Feb 09 15:38
    yeah, chrome and firefox uses 48k, but the audio files are huge and it's just people talking so it can be lower
  39. powrsurg
    Feb 09 15:39
    I was seeing people say "64 kpbs or 128 kbps is good enough"
  40. zakim-robot
    Feb 09 15:54
    [kevinchao89] I've read a couple articles about how FaceBook has automagic alt text for photos, but I have not figured out how to enable/access it on desktop or mobile. Anyone know the special sauce required? Thanks!
  41. powrsurg
    Feb 09 16:24
    What do you mean enable/access? Isn't it simply an alt="something" on the image?
  42. powrsurg
    Feb 09 16:25
    I imagine a company Facebook's size has the time/money to get OCR working right ...
  43. zakim-robot
    Feb 09 16:35
    [kevinchao89] My assumption was that it'd be alt text on web app, accessibilityLabel on iOS, and contentDescription on Android. However, I've been unable to experience the artificial intelligence and machine learning.
  44. MichielBijl
    Feb 09 16:36
    Is that implemented yet?
  45. MichielBijl
    Feb 09 16:37
    I know they're working on something like that, but don't have Facebook, so can't check.
  46. stevefaulkner
    Feb 09 16:45
    https://twitter.com/stevefaulkner/status/697098519816101890
  47. MichielBijl
    Feb 09 16:51
    Reminds me of: w3c/aria#216
  48. stevefaulkner
    Feb 09 16:55
    yup
  49. MichielBijl
    Feb 09 16:56
    “HTML 5 and the "serialized" XHTML version of HTML 5 are years away from standardization.” :')
  50. MichielBijl
    Feb 09 16:56
    I've asked the other editors, but haven't gotten a reply.
  51. MichielBijl
    Feb 09 16:56
    I feel I should just remove it…
  52. stevefaulkner
    Feb 09 16:58
    the whole doc should be nuked
  53. MichielBijl
    Feb 09 16:58
    In an ideal world, yes.
  54. MichielBijl
    Feb 09 16:59
    But we'd be able to style native elements in that world, too.
  55. LjWatson
    Feb 09 17:18
    Do people in this channel think of landmarks (banner, main, navigation etc.) as a table of contents for the page (y/n)? Thanks :)
  56. powrsurg
    Feb 09 17:20
    I'd lean more towards y
  57. powrsurg
    Feb 09 17:20
    which means it's n
  58. powrsurg
    Feb 09 17:24
    ... and testing out nvda with focus highlighting just flipped out on me when I moved Firefox from my main monitor to my secondary monitor ...
  59. LjWatson
    Feb 09 17:26
    Thanks powrsurg
  60. powrsurg
    Feb 09 17:27
    np
  61. MichielBijl
    Feb 09 17:30
    @LjWatson, might not be the best person to answer that, but I see them as sections of a page where I'd be most interested in the <main>. So no, I don't see them as a table of contents.
  62. MichielBijl
    Feb 09 17:31
    That would be the stuff inside the main.
  63. MichielBijl
    Feb 09 17:31
    I know it probably doesn't work that way, but that is my opinion anyway ;)
  64. LjWatson
    Feb 09 17:37
    That's a good about the content inside the main Michiel.
  65. LjWatson
    Feb 09 17:37
    good point.
  66. MichielBijl
    Feb 09 17:37
    :+1:
  67. powrsurg
    Feb 09 18:25
    Does anyone think that linking to the W3C github page for WebVTT is useful for users if you include a section on how they can upload captions, or is there a better page to explain it that's not too technical?
  68. stevefaulkner
    Feb 09 18:55

    Does anyone think that linking to the W3C github page for WebVTT is useful for users if you include a section on how they can upload captions, or is there a better page to explain it that's not too technical?

    hopefully there is some resource that's less technical

  69. zakim-robot
    Feb 09 19:09
    [alansouzati] Gridcell issue
  70. powrsurg
    Feb 09 19:09
    Right now I'm going with https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/jj152136%28v=vs.85%29.aspx
  71. detlevhfischer
    Feb 09 21:24
    is this the place to ask if people now all feel that title is fine for accName of images if alt=""? We feel queasy about it but it seems to be WCAG position (title being an option in the accName algorithm) and seems to work for the screen readers we tested with (NVDA & JAWS). Not best practice, but good enough to pass SC 1.1.1?
  72. jnurthen
    Feb 09 21:26
    hmm - I thought if alt="" the image would not have an accessible name because it would be marked as decorative. If alt is missing then title could be used as the accessible name
  73. garcialo
    Feb 09 21:27
    Decorative images with alt="" pass 1.1.1
  74. detlevhfischer
    Feb 09 21:29
    missing alt should be a validation error
  75. jnurthen
    Feb 09 21:30
    yep - but that does not equate to an accessibility error :)
  76. garcialo
    Feb 09 21:31
    I would call no alt a 1.1.1 fail
  77. stevefaulkner
    Feb 09 21:32
    Alt="" is an indication to ignore the image, adding a non empty title implies the image has meaning - is contradictory
  78. garcialo
    Feb 09 21:32
    :+1:
  79. detlevhfischer
    Feb 09 21:33
    @steve: correct, but I'm aiming at the output for users - if it works in practice across the board, they wouldn't care if its contradictory semantically?
  80. garcialo
    Feb 09 21:34
    If it's decorative what are you wanting to output for users?
  81. stevefaulkner
    Feb 09 21:35
    Does it work for users across the board? Is the content of the title an appropriate accessible name?
  82. detlevhfischer
    Feb 09 21:35
    My question is: do we see an issue (fail 1.1.1) if someone uses title for accName while it actually works, because there might be situations where title will not work?
  83. detlevhfischer
    Feb 09 21:37
    @garcialo: I am not talking about a particular example - a colleague of mine is reviewing our checkpoints and asked me if title was good enough for meeting 1.1.1 and I squirmed ad said "probably yes, but let"s ask the community"
  84. garcialo
    Feb 09 21:37
    I would pass it if they use title instead of alt.
  85. garcialo
    Feb 09 21:37
    ...and it worked
  86. garcialo
    Feb 09 21:38
    ...which it probably would.
  87. detlevhfischer
    Feb 09 21:39
    if pass or fail hinges on the presence or absence of the @alt, that would be an important qualification
  88. garcialo
    Feb 09 21:40
    Yes, but I also thought we were talking about decorative images earlier.
  89. detlevhfischer
    Feb 09 21:41
    I was't, that's not the issue
  90. garcialo
    Feb 09 21:42
    Yeah, the issue is "does it still pass if it uses something other than alt for the accName?"
  91. garcialo
    Feb 09 21:42
    I say "yes."
  92. garcialo
    Feb 09 21:43
    ...assuming it works
  93. detlevhfischer
    Feb 09 21:44
    I assume the reasoning of wb developers will be like this: 1. I want this page to validate (so I use alt on img (but empty)): 2. I want an accName that works; 3. I have been asked to provide a tooltip anyway, so I kill 2 birds with 1 stone and use @title as it will also serve as accName
  94. garcialo
    Feb 09 21:45
    Yeah, I can see the logic behind that.
  95. detlevhfischer
    Feb 09 21:46
    and using the same content on alt AND title even risks having it spoken twice
  96. garcialo
    Feb 09 21:47
    Yeah.
  97. detlevhfischer
    Feb 09 21:56
    james - what do you think? Are you still around
  98. garcialo
    Feb 09 21:57
    He only responds to @jnurthen
  99. garcialo
    Feb 09 21:57
    He has forsaken his given name.
  100. detlevhfischer
    Feb 09 21:59
    ok @jnurthen what do you thinkesth?
  101. detlevhfischer
    Feb 09 22:01
    he may be walloping in primary anticipation or in super bowl hangover?
  102. garcialo
    Feb 09 22:01
    Oh yeah! I forgot that's tonight!
  103. garcialo
    Feb 09 22:01
    I'm so hyped.
  104. detlevhfischer
    Feb 09 22:01
    I'm off to bed anyway
  105. garcialo
    Feb 09 22:02
    Sleep well.
  106. detlevhfischer
    Feb 09 22:02
    ta
  107. jnurthen
    Feb 09 22:22
    sorry - stepped away for a bit
  108. jnurthen
    Feb 09 22:28
    I tend to not let our developers get away with no alt text because having it is good practice but IMO <img src="https://ak-hdl.buzzfed.com/static/2014-04/enhanced/webdr05/3/11/enhanced-buzz-11461-1396539307-5.jpg" title="cat standing on hind legs looking over a snow bank"> would pass 1.1.1 but fail HTML validation.
  109. jnurthen
    Feb 09 22:29
    cause as far as I'm aware title is accessibility supported for 1.1.1
  110. jnurthen
    Feb 09 22:29
    but I certainly wouldn't recommend it
  111. jnurthen
    Feb 09 22:32
    (My personal opinion is that it works but causes too many conversations with customers so I prefer we use the "safe" option and add alt text because in the long run it saves everybodies time)