This is axe's acid3 test.
Building the most inaccessible site with a perfect Lighthouse score (2019)
21–30 of 42 posts
Re: Building the most inaccessible site with a perfect Lighthouse score (2019)
#22My personal takeaway from this is that automated accessibility tests are no substitute for professional audits
My takeaway was that accessibility tools expect the websites they are checking not to be actively hostile to accessibility.
Hardly. These examples are really clear cut and easy to avoid in isolation, however some of them can also be employed by accident or ignorance in larger code bases.
Re: Building the most inaccessible site with a perfect Lighthouse score (2019)
#23> There's a version of this article without the middle finger emoji. People really get offended by the middle finger emoji? Wow.
People get really offended by a sign designed to cause offence? Wow.
You might feel some moral high ground by abandoning all tradition and traditional social contracts, but those traditions and traditional social contracts are still held in high regard by many many people.
Re: Building the most inaccessible site with a perfect Lighthouse score (2019)
#24> This post is about you and me. Scores indicate the quality of our apps and sites, but we must not trust these numbers thoughtlessly. We have to understand that automatic testing is just a first step. I run my own scoring tool website best practices and SEO, and often get support requests from users who are worried or annoyed they can't get a perfect score. Some of my general views here: - Scores serve more as a min…
I had a quick look at your scoring tool. It looks quite useful.
Couple of issues I spotted:
- You're recommending a maximum meta description length of 320. That's no longer what Google recommends.
- I got all green ticks for mobile scaling on a site with "maximum-scale=1". Maximum scale should ideally be avoided.
Re: Building the most inaccessible site with a perfect Lighthouse score (2019)
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
Accessibility is just usability. You cannot automate usability tests. You have to put it in front of a real human and see if they can use it.
> Accessibility is just usability. Common thought, but not really true. The basics of accessibility might be considered just "usability" or even UX, but going beyond that, it steps in being useful for people with certain disabilities while not impacting people without. One example from the article, `aria-hidden="true"` ( https://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria/#aria-hidden ) might be used to hide elements containing text that…
If they are no good for screen reader users, what's their puprpose for non-screen reader users? I can only think of bad use-cases. Duplicating content the site wants to promote or a duplicated navigation. Things would probably be more clean without in most cases.
Re: Building the most inaccessible site with a perfect Lighthouse score (2019)
#26> Designing the most wheel-chair inaccessible building that meets all accessibility codes!
> btw guys this isn't really about accessibility guidelines it's just about, uh, the importance of not relying on those guidelines, or something. totally not me venting about having to follow accessibility guidelines in the first place as many of my professional colleagues are known for doing.
Re: Building the most inaccessible site with a perfect Lighthouse score (2019)
#27Surprised to see that the OP didn’t even mess with scrolling – a staple nowadays, especially on touch devices.
For me it is lack of scrolling. With many domains that scripts should be loaded from blocked (umatrix) some modern sites show lengthy content but no scroll bar. It might be intended to set up the view by script depending on the device, but for sure it feels as if it is intentionally done to make visitors load/run the scripts.
Re: Building the most inaccessible site with a perfect Lighthouse score (2019)
#28> There's a version of this article without the middle finger emoji. People really get offended by the middle finger emoji? Wow.
My assumption was to keep it SFW
Re: Building the most inaccessible site with a perfect Lighthouse score (2019)
#29> There's a version of this article without the middle finger emoji. People really get offended by the middle finger emoji? Wow.
People get really offended by a sign designed to cause offence? Wow. You might feel some moral high ground by abandoning all tradition and traditional social contracts, but those traditions and traditional social contracts are still held in high regard by many many people.
Some people abandon all traditional social contracts only to embrace totally new social co tracts and then demand that everyone else embrace then too.
Re: Building the most inaccessible site with a perfect Lighthouse score (2019)
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Accessibility is just usability. Common thought, but not really true. The basics of accessibility might be considered just "usability" or even UX, but going beyond that, it steps in being useful for people with certain disabilities while not impacting people without. One example from the article, `aria-hidden="true"` ( https://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria/#aria-hidden ) might be used to hide elements containing text that…
If they are no good for screen reader users, what's their puprpose for non-screen reader users? I can only think of bad use-cases. Duplicating content the site wants to promote or a duplicated navigation. Things would probably be more clean without in most cases.
Screen readers often read things in particular ways that non-screen readers would interpret differently. One example that I've run into is using all caps to label something, like "ACCOUNT NAME". Screen readers will typically read out each letter individually instead of as a word. There could be other things, like describing field colors or something that are not as useful when audio only.