Inclusive

Two years ago, I wrote about prefers-reduced-motion, a media query introduced into Safari 10.1 to help people with vestibular and seizure disorders use the web. The article provided some background about the media query, why it was needed, and how to work with it to avoid creating disability-triggering visual effects.

The article was informed by other people’s excellent work, namely Orde Saunders’ post about user queries, and Val Head’s article on web animation motion sensitivity.

We’re now four months into 2019, and it makes me happy to report that we have support for the feature in all major desktop browsers! Safari was first, with Firefox being a close second. Chrome was a little late to the party, but introduced it as of version 74.

[…]

Reduce isn’t necessarily remove

We may not need to throw the baby out with the bathwater when it comes to using animation. Remember, it’s prefers-reduced-motion, not prefers-no-motion.

[…]

If the meaning of a component is diminished by removing its animation altogether, we could slow down and simplify the component’s animation to the point where the concept can be communicated without potentially being an accessibility trigger.

A reminder of why reader modes exist in browsers and to embrace them as a user’s right:

Good design isn’t about forcing someone to walk a tightrope across your carefully manicured lawn. Nor is it a puzzle box casually tossed to the user, hoping they’ll unlock it to reveal a hidden treasure. Good design is about doing the hard work to accommodate the different ways people access a solution to an identified problem.

For reading articles, the core problem is turning my ignorance about an issue into understanding (the funding model for this is a whole other complicated concern). The more obstructions you throw in my way to achieve this goal, the more I am inclined to leave and get my understanding elsewhere—all I’ll remember is how poor a time I had while trying to access your content. What is the value of an ad impression if it ultimately leads to that user never returning?

This is a great visual example of why you shouldn’t assume that having a touch screen always equals a phone or tablet.

I just recently updated a bunch of my click handlers to not act when the Ctrl or Shift keys are pressed during the click, so that links can be opened in new tabs or windows by the user if so wanted:

This looks like an excellent, accessible starting point for the priority navigation pattern:

Or the priority navigation pattern, or progressively collapsing navigation menu. We can name it in at least three ways.

There are multiple UX solutions for tabs and menus and each of them have their own advantages over another, you just need to pick the best for the case you are trying to solve. At design and development agency Kollegorna we were debating on the most appropriate UX technique for tabs for our client’s website…

We agreed it should be a one-liner because the amount of tab items is unknown and narrowed our options down to two: horizontal scroll and adaptive with “more” button. Firstly, the problem with the former one is that horizontal scroll as a feature is not always visually obvious for users (especially for narrow elements like tabs) whereas what else can be more obvious than a button (“more”), right? Secondly, scrolling horizontally using a mouse-controlled device isn’t a very comfortable thing to do, so we might need to make our UI more complex with additional arrow buttons. All considered, we ended up choosing the later option[.]

This excellent video by Physics Girl breaks down some of the misconceptions about what we programmers actually do and why we do what we do, with a focus on women and femme people in the field. I could relate especially to the discussion about it being very much about enjoying problem solving.

May 17th is Global Accessibility Awareness Day. See the source link for more. The participate page is a great list of things to test for and be aware of.

The target audience of GAAD is the design, development, usability, and related communities who build, shape, fund and influence technology and its use. While people may be interested in the topic of making technology accessible and usable by persons with disabilities, the reality is that they often do not know how or where to start. Awareness comes first.

This is pretty neat: an accessible drag and drop component that works with keyboard as well as a pointer.

This seems like a useful resource: a list of test results for various screen readers and browser combinations, in what they support and how they behave when encountering certain elements, attributes, etc.

[S]upport aside, it’s still not a particularly good choice as a consistent means to convey accessible information. Because while the title does provide an accessible name to elements in the absence of other sources, it is considered a fallback. Outside of some notable exceptions (more on this later), other mechanisms will always be preferred.

[…]

While the title attribute can be used on any HTML element, it’s essentially wasted on most inline, text level elements. As these elements aren’t typically included in the accessibility tree, there’s no reason for a screen reader to look for a title on these elements to announce.

Block-level wrapping elements can get some usage out of the title attribute. JAWS, NVDA and VoiceOver will all announce a title on elements like landmarks (header, footer, main, etc.) but support may vary on other elements depending on your browser pairing. For example, JAWS will not announce a title on a div without additional role updates.

Other wrapping elements, like lists and paragraphs, are announced in JAWS and VoiceOver, but NVDA ignores the attribute on these elements. But honestly, using title tooltips on these elements is highly suspect. Why would you want to have a tooltip constantly appearing over a large chunk of content? Unless you are purposefully trying to hide content, which isn’t helpful, there’s little need for using the title in this manner.

Images, form fields, and anchor links are the elements one is most likely to associate with the title attribute. In regards to screen readers, the title attribute essentially gets a “B” grade when reviewing publicly available screen reader support charts from powermapper.com.

titles are meant to serve as descriptive text. And largely only in situations where there is no accessible name for an image, form field, or anchor element, the title will be promoted to the accessible name.