4 ms·

> it seemed straight up broken because it couldn't reach my site: https://wave.webaim.org/ https://wave.webaim.org/ It worked for me, it found lots of color co

> it seemed straight up broken because it couldn't reach my site: https://wave.webaim.org/ https://wave.webaim.org/ It worked for me, it found lots of color contrast problems (white-on-light purple has low contrast). https://wave.webaim.org/report#/https://kronis.dev/ https://wave.webaim.org/report#/https://kronis.dev/ WAVE is also available as a browser extension. Accessibility checkers can be helpful, particularly for catching basic errors before they ship. The large majority of accessibility problems a site can have cannot be identified by software, humans need to find them. Current Bootstrap is not bad if you read and follow all of their advice. I'm not claiming there are no problems lurking amongst their offerings. If you search for "name-of-thing accessibility" and don't find extensive details about accessibility in the thing's own documentation, it probably does a poor job. A framework can't prevent developers from making mistakes.

wizofaus 4y ago
"The large majority of accessibility problems a site can have cannot be identified by software" Bold statement. I used to work in exactly that area and the reality is humans often simply don't bother finding many of the accessibility issues that automated tools can and do find. Even if such a tool isn't able to accurately pinpoint every possible issue, and inevitably gives a number of false positives (the classic being expecting everything to have ALT text, even when images are essentially decorative and don't provide information to the user), the use of it at least provides a starting point for humans to be able to realistically find the most serious issues and ensure they're addressed. However I would never claim that good accessibility support requires significantly more (e.g. >2x) resources, and certainly not at the OS level. In fact, you typically get better accessibility if you use the built-in OS (or browser) provided controls, which are less resource intensive than the fancy custom ones app seems to like using these days (even MS's own apps are heavy on custom-controls for everything).
- extra88 4y ago
  I currently work in this area (web accessibility) and am just repeating what is commonly understood. When considering what WCAG criteria cover (which is not even everything that could pose a barrier to people with disabilities), most failures to meet the criteria cannot be identified by software alone. For example, the classic I would say is not whether an image needs an alt attribute or not but whether an image's alt attribute value is a meaningful equivalent to the image in the context where it appears. I'm not sure what kind of "resources" you're referring to. If you mean computing resources (CPU, RAM, etc.) standard, contemporary computers do seem to have enough for current assistive technologies, one doesn't need to buy a higher end computer to run them. If you mean OS resources for supplying assistive technologies and accessibility APIs, mainstream OS's are decent but specifically for screen readers there's a lot of room for improvement.

wizofaus 4y ago

"The large majority of accessibility problems a site can have cannot be identified by software" Bold statement. I used to work in exactly that area and the reality is humans often simply don't bother finding many of the accessibility issues that automated tools can and do find. Even if such a tool isn't able to accurately pinpoint every possible issue, and inevitably gives a number of false positives (the classic being expecting everything to have ALT text, even when images are essentially decorative and don't provide information to the user), the use of it at least provides a starting point for humans to be able to realistically find the most serious issues and ensure they're addressed. However I would never claim that good accessibility support requires significantly more (e.g. >2x) resources, and certainly not at the OS level. In fact, you typically get better accessibility if you use the built-in OS (or browser) provided controls, which are less resource intensive than the fancy custom ones app seems to like using these days (even MS's own apps are heavy on custom-controls for everything).

extra88 4y ago
I currently work in this area (web accessibility) and am just repeating what is commonly understood. When considering what WCAG criteria cover (which is not even everything that could pose a barrier to people with disabilities), most failures to meet the criteria cannot be identified by software alone. For example, the classic I would say is not whether an image needs an alt attribute or not but whether an image's alt attribute value is a meaningful equivalent to the image in the context where it appears. I'm not sure what kind of "resources" you're referring to. If you mean computing resources (CPU, RAM, etc.) standard, contemporary computers do seem to have enough for current assistive technologies, one doesn't need to buy a higher end computer to run them. If you mean OS resources for supplying assistive technologies and accessibility APIs, mainstream OS's are decent but specifically for screen readers there's a lot of room for improvement.