6 ms·

In your test environment send HTML as type application/xhtml+xml, block all CSS and images, and add JavaScript that locks the mouse cursor to the first pixel on

In your test environment send HTML as type application/xhtml+xml, block all CSS and images, and add JavaScript that locks the mouse cursor to the first pixel on the screen. Then test the site for content and usability as you normally would. Vision impaired persons do not benefit from CSS or images. All images should have proper corresponding alternate text. Changing the media type of the HTML does require a bit more strict syntax, but it also is a cheap trick to ensure the HTML tags and structure are arranged in a valid way. I do not recommend disabling JavaScript. JavaScript is for interaction and blind persons need JavaScript just the same as the rest of us to navigate through content on complex sites. Inserting code that locks the mouse cursor to a single location forces QA to navigate the site/content using a keyboard. Doing these things is the cheapest way to test for very basic compliance. In order to achieve AA WCAG 2.0 conformance you actually have to understand accessibility and classes of disabilities. You might be able to get some quick wins with tool automation, but manual testing is much better. There is one exception, color contrast. You absolutely need to use a tool to perform color contrast validation, because people eyes aren't good at accounting for both luminescence and contrast at the same time. EDIT: In FireFox (Windows) you can turn off CSS by clicking the ALT keyboard key to bring up the main menu then View -> Page Style -> No Style

qwerty456127 8y ago
> send HTML as type application/xhtml+xml What does this change?
- skibz 8y ago
  > Changing the media type of the HTML does require a bit more strict syntax, but it also is a cheap trick to ensure the HTML tags and structure are arranged in a valid way.
  - jitl 8y ago
    This seems a bit bananas to me because there’s plenty of valid HTML5 is NOT valid XHTML or XML. For example, HTML5 allows common tags such as <p> and <li> to be unclosed, which is not valid in XHTML. HTML5 written in this style is not “wrong” - it’s valid, and correctly presented by tools like VoiceOver. Screen readers will be a-okay with HTML5; this advice is going to send people down wild goose chases with no need. XHTML is an alternative, dead-end branch of HTML evolution that time has forgotten. To validate HTML, use an HTML validator.
    - austincheney 8y ago
      In modern browsers all modern HTML5 is valid XHTML so long as it conforms to the syntax and tag structure. In fact the only real difference, aside from closing tags like br and img, is that with XHTML the browser yells at you when you get HTML wrong. On my personal sites I send all my HTML with a .xhtml file extension to force XML compliance, but the code is modern HTML5.
      - y4mi 8y ago
        that is wrong. this is valid html5 for example: <ul> <li>content <li>content2 </ul> quick google got me this blog post: https://blog.teamtreehouse.com/to-close-or-not-to-close-tags-in-html5 https://blog.teamtreehouse.com/to-close-or-not-to-close-tags...
        austincheney 8y ago
        I am aware.
    - qwerty456127 8y ago
      > HTML5 allows common tags such as <p> and <li> to be unclosed Yet many people (me included) consider this inappropriate and never use this allowance. In some cases (when you hand-type/edit huge HTML documents) it is a handy feature but there probably are many scripts that can close the tags for you once you're done.
interfixus 8y ago
> Vision impaired persons do not benefit from CSS or images They might. You probably mean blind people.
- austincheney 8y ago
  No, I mean vision impaired. There are all kinds of different vision disabilities besides blindness and color blindness.
  - interfixus 8y ago
    Yes, exactly. And many such impairments will not prevent you benefitting from layout, colors, typography, images, and sundry other kinds of graphical trickery.
    - austincheney 8y ago
      Sounds like you are confusing non-blindness for normal functionality. Fortunately, Wikipedia has a page for this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_impairment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_impairment The idea of accessibility is that a product/service is available to a wide audience regardless of their physical/cognitive impairment. It is still discriminatory if some user might be capable of enjoying visual eye candy if they must struggle to do so due to an impairment and are denied access to that content otherwise.
      - shawnz 8y ago
        I don't think you are understanding the parent correctly. They are saying a person with a partial visual impairment can still benefit from a well-designed visual page layout, because a person with partial visual impairment might still use vision in some ways. So well-designed CSS and images DO benefit those individuals. You seem to be implying that anyone with a visual impairment, even a partial one, would prefer to browse with CSS and images off. But that's not necessarily the case.
        8y ago

qwerty456127 8y ago

> send HTML as type application/xhtml+xml What does this change?

skibz 8y ago
> Changing the media type of the HTML does require a bit more strict syntax, but it also is a cheap trick to ensure the HTML tags and structure are arranged in a valid way.
- jitl 8y ago
  This seems a bit bananas to me because there’s plenty of valid HTML5 is NOT valid XHTML or XML. For example, HTML5 allows common tags such as <p> and <li> to be unclosed, which is not valid in XHTML. HTML5 written in this style is not “wrong” - it’s valid, and correctly presented by tools like VoiceOver. Screen readers will be a-okay with HTML5; this advice is going to send people down wild goose chases with no need. XHTML is an alternative, dead-end branch of HTML evolution that time has forgotten. To validate HTML, use an HTML validator.
  - austincheney 8y ago
    In modern browsers all modern HTML5 is valid XHTML so long as it conforms to the syntax and tag structure. In fact the only real difference, aside from closing tags like br and img, is that with XHTML the browser yells at you when you get HTML wrong. On my personal sites I send all my HTML with a .xhtml file extension to force XML compliance, but the code is modern HTML5.
    - y4mi 8y ago
      that is wrong. this is valid html5 for example: <ul> <li>content <li>content2 </ul> quick google got me this blog post: https://blog.teamtreehouse.com/to-close-or-not-to-close-tags-in-html5 https://blog.teamtreehouse.com/to-close-or-not-to-close-tags...
      - austincheney 8y ago
        I am aware.
  - qwerty456127 8y ago
    > HTML5 allows common tags such as <p> and <li> to be unclosed Yet many people (me included) consider this inappropriate and never use this allowance. In some cases (when you hand-type/edit huge HTML documents) it is a handy feature but there probably are many scripts that can close the tags for you once you're done.

interfixus 8y ago

> Vision impaired persons do not benefit from CSS or images They might. You probably mean blind people.

austincheney 8y ago
No, I mean vision impaired. There are all kinds of different vision disabilities besides blindness and color blindness.
- interfixus 8y ago
  Yes, exactly. And many such impairments will not prevent you benefitting from layout, colors, typography, images, and sundry other kinds of graphical trickery.
  - austincheney 8y ago
    Sounds like you are confusing non-blindness for normal functionality. Fortunately, Wikipedia has a page for this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_impairment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_impairment The idea of accessibility is that a product/service is available to a wide audience regardless of their physical/cognitive impairment. It is still discriminatory if some user might be capable of enjoying visual eye candy if they must struggle to do so due to an impairment and are denied access to that content otherwise.
    - shawnz 8y ago
      I don't think you are understanding the parent correctly. They are saying a person with a partial visual impairment can still benefit from a well-designed visual page layout, because a person with partial visual impairment might still use vision in some ways. So well-designed CSS and images DO benefit those individuals. You seem to be implying that anyone with a visual impairment, even a partial one, would prefer to browse with CSS and images off. But that's not necessarily the case.
      - 8y ago