4 ms·

Do disabled people usually use text-only browsers or turn off JS? That seems orthogonal to being disabled.

userbinator 3y ago
That's why I'm saying it's box-ticking. Simple HTML is more accessible to everyone. That includes those with screenreaders and other content extraction/reformatting tools.
- slimsag 3y ago
  My understanding is all modern screenreaders (NVDA, JAWS, VoiceOver, etc.) handle JS websites perfectly fine and modern accessibility standards in JS are much more than box-ticking. I'm a fan of simple HTML, too-but I don't believe it has any real impact on accessibility over JS with accessibility in mind. If there are specific cases where that is not true, I'd love to know them
  - pjerem 3y ago
    JS issues with accessibility is not inherent to the JS compatibility itself with the browser. It’s much more that JS tends to make your page being modified in unexpected ways. If all you have is a voice reading the page, you may be submerged by information each time the dom changes and you may have a hard time understanding what is the context of the element which changed.
    - yreg 3y ago
      You can still make it perfectly accessible screen-reader-wise/WCAG-wise. Pointing out to actual accessibility issues would have been a much better argument than generic complaining about the website requiring JS.
      - nottorp 3y ago
        How does it work with a screen reader when the JS decides to refresh all controls simultaneously?
        yreg 3y ago
        https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Accessibility/ARIA/ARIA_Live_Regions https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Accessibility/A...
        doublepg23 3y ago
        Here is a video of a blind person browsing the web https://youtu.be/OOvXuz6ejuw https://youtu.be/OOvXuz6ejuw
        nottorp 3y ago
        The point is that for some reason no one's guilty for the crap sites; i guess they just show up when it rains.
  - userbinator 3y ago
    If you think it's confusing to have a page change while you're reading it with your eyes, imagine what that would do to someone who can't see and relies on a screenreader telling them.
    - robin_reala 3y ago
      Right, but that’s why you have aria-live regions and politeness levels. All things considered, a simpler page is typically more accessible but: - a simpler page is typically more usable as well, and - sometimes you have inherent complexity that it’s also possible to make accessible
pxc 3y ago
Blind users definitely lean heavily on the text-only dimension of the web.

That's why I'm saying it's box-ticking. Simple HTML is more accessible to everyone. That includes those with screenreaders and other content extraction/reformatting tools.

slimsag 3y ago
My understanding is all modern screenreaders (NVDA, JAWS, VoiceOver, etc.) handle JS websites perfectly fine and modern accessibility standards in JS are much more than box-ticking. I'm a fan of simple HTML, too-but I don't believe it has any real impact on accessibility over JS with accessibility in mind. If there are specific cases where that is not true, I'd love to know them
- pjerem 3y ago
  JS issues with accessibility is not inherent to the JS compatibility itself with the browser. It’s much more that JS tends to make your page being modified in unexpected ways. If all you have is a voice reading the page, you may be submerged by information each time the dom changes and you may have a hard time understanding what is the context of the element which changed.
  - yreg 3y ago
    You can still make it perfectly accessible screen-reader-wise/WCAG-wise. Pointing out to actual accessibility issues would have been a much better argument than generic complaining about the website requiring JS.
    - nottorp 3y ago
      How does it work with a screen reader when the JS decides to refresh all controls simultaneously?
      - yreg 3y ago
        https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Accessibility/ARIA/ARIA_Live_Regions https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Accessibility/A...
      - doublepg23 3y ago
        Here is a video of a blind person browsing the web https://youtu.be/OOvXuz6ejuw https://youtu.be/OOvXuz6ejuw
        nottorp 3y ago
        The point is that for some reason no one's guilty for the crap sites; i guess they just show up when it rains.
- userbinator 3y ago
  If you think it's confusing to have a page change while you're reading it with your eyes, imagine what that would do to someone who can't see and relies on a screenreader telling them.
  - robin_reala 3y ago
    Right, but that’s why you have aria-live regions and politeness levels. All things considered, a simpler page is typically more accessible but: - a simpler page is typically more usable as well, and - sometimes you have inherent complexity that it’s also possible to make accessible

pxc 3y ago

Blind users definitely lean heavily on the text-only dimension of the web.