4 ms·
The difficulty really depends on how much you deviate from the browser defaults. For example, if you use the default datepicker it's accessible by default, if y
by iudqnolq 6y ago
The difficulty really depends on how much you deviate from the browser defaults. For example, if you use the default datepicker it's accessible by default, if you build your own you'll need to annotate the states with accessibility attributes.
I don't think it's as difficult as you make out to draw a line. An analogy: you can't have only a men's restroom in your Dominos store, but if can in your shed in your backyard for your friends if you want.
Edit: Now I've read TFA I learned the law already has a perfectly reasonable sounding standard that was ruled not to apply to the internet in this case
> Winn-Dixie had argued that the law defines "public accommodations" to only include physical locations like a store. A website isn't a physical location, and hence it's outside the scope of the law, the grocery chain argued.
- blacktriangle 6y agoI'd hate to see this become the standard. The build-in browser datepicker is utter shit. There's a reason nobody uses it. Frankly the whole HTML form spec is a world of crap for what users are expecting from UIs these days. Being legally limited to what the WHATWG manages to agree on and ship in a browser would be a huge step back for web applications.
- iudqnolq 6y agoThe default is hard to use. However, I've found it better than the open-source alternatives I've seen (mainly AirBnB datepicker) if you test across {Chrome,Firefox}{Desktop,Mobile}. I also wasn't suggesting the built-in should be mandated, just that if you replace it you either provide a way to downgrade to the built-in or make your replacement at least as accessibile. If you make your replacement usable with only a keyboard you'll be nearly there anyway.
- TheCoelacanth 6y agoAny half-decent datepicker library is going to be accessible. If you absolutely must reinvent the wheel, then yes, you will need to put in a bit of extra effort to make it accessible.
- blincoln 6y agoYes, this. I originally learned how to build accessible web sites and apps in 1996,when I interned at a startup. Most web standards make it easy to implement accessibility. It's generally only when building complex, custom stuff that it becomes harder, IMO. And (also IMO), that custom stuff tends to be fragile and break on other browsers or over time anyway, so I've avoided it ever since.
- DebtDeflation 6y agoRight, but at what point does some of the burden of making a website accessible fall on the screen reader application used by those with disabilities? Like, if there's nothing technically preventing the screen reader from reading the website, it's just that the site does not do things the way the screen reader wants them to, why does the onus fall on the site owner?
- curryst 6y agoI presumed screen readers had some kind of standard in the way they interpreted things. The standard allows the user to choose which screen reader they want. Letting the screen readers interpret things however they want seems likely to end up in a situation like browsers. Horrible shims everywhere to handle the idiosyncracies of how each reader interprets things.