Sara linked to my post with multiple concrete errors, which I am linking again:
https://toot.cafe/@aardrian/116608683977339586
So that’s one justification.
My prior ‘dissatisfaction’ is a post that shows a pattern of behavior from Google — with evidence. Since the best predictor of future behavior is prior behavior, as MWP demonstrates, those posts are appropriate.
End of individual replies. Thank you for your time.
@[email protected] Ok, more things I see immediately... • `<div>`s with `aria-label`, breaking https://github.com/GoogleChrome/modern-web-guidance-src/blob/2d86433cc9f33e00c3d5aa8539326020851b17d7/guides/accessibility/accessibility/guide.md#:~:text=Don%27t%20put%20aria%2Dlabel%2Faria%2Dlabelledby%20on%20elements%20that%20shouldn%27t%20be%20named%20%E2%80%94%20e%2Eg%2E%20plain%20%3Cdiv%3E%2C%20%3Cspan%3E%2C%20or%20custom%20elements%20without%20a%20role%2E • Low-contrast text. LOTS. Breaking https://github.com/GoogleChrome/modern-web-guidance-src/blob/2d86433cc9f33e00c3d5aa8539326020851b17d7/guides/accessibility/accessibility/guide.md#:~:text=Minimum%20contrast%20standards%3A%20Maintain%204%2E5%3A1%20for%20normal%20text%20and%203%3A1%20for%20large%20text%20or%20icons • Named regions _in_ `<details>`? • `aria-controls` on `<summary>`? • SVG chart values not exposed, navigable. Errors aside, this is over-engineered (for the prompt even), encodes unnecessary dependencies on fonts, is meant for Chrome viewers. Sure, it gets some basics right, but I’d send a team back if they brought this.
For the PS part, my experience says otherwise. I have been asked to donate time to Google repeatedly. No other browser vendor has done that to me. I am aware of other accessibility practitioners who would say the same. Sure, it’s anecdata, but so is yours.
You can compare what I identified with the output Ana got (which, as you know, did not use MWP).
Yes, the MWP output is dramatically better. But it won’t pass WCAG, despite accessibility claims on the MWP site. Never mind the over-engineering.
My results again:
https://toot.cafe/@aardrian/116608683977339586
@[email protected] Ok, more things I see immediately... • `<div>`s with `aria-label`, breaking https://github.com/GoogleChrome/modern-web-guidance-src/blob/2d86433cc9f33e00c3d5aa8539326020851b17d7/guides/accessibility/accessibility/guide.md#:~:text=Don%27t%20put%20aria%2Dlabel%2Faria%2Dlabelledby%20on%20elements%20that%20shouldn%27t%20be%20named%20%E2%80%94%20e%2Eg%2E%20plain%20%3Cdiv%3E%2C%20%3Cspan%3E%2C%20or%20custom%20elements%20without%20a%20role%2E • Low-contrast text. LOTS. Breaking https://github.com/GoogleChrome/modern-web-guidance-src/blob/2d86433cc9f33e00c3d5aa8539326020851b17d7/guides/accessibility/accessibility/guide.md#:~:text=Minimum%20contrast%20standards%3A%20Maintain%204%2E5%3A1%20for%20normal%20text%20and%203%3A1%20for%20large%20text%20or%20icons • Named regions _in_ `<details>`? • `aria-controls` on `<summary>`? • SVG chart values not exposed, navigable. Errors aside, this is over-engineered (for the prompt even), encodes unnecessary dependencies on fonts, is meant for Chrome viewers. Sure, it gets some basics right, but I’d send a team back if they brought this.
Another warranting a response.
You do not address any of the issues I identified here, which Sara linked:
https://toot.cafe/@aardrian/116608683977339586
I have more responses coming to individual posts. I’m using #NecroMWP so it’s easier to find my out-of-timeline individual responses (and mute them, if you prefer).
@[email protected] Ok, more things I see immediately... • `<div>`s with `aria-label`, breaking https://github.com/GoogleChrome/modern-web-guidance-src/blob/2d86433cc9f33e00c3d5aa8539326020851b17d7/guides/accessibility/accessibility/guide.md#:~:text=Don%27t%20put%20aria%2Dlabel%2Faria%2Dlabelledby%20on%20elements%20that%20shouldn%27t%20be%20named%20%E2%80%94%20e%2Eg%2E%20plain%20%3Cdiv%3E%2C%20%3Cspan%3E%2C%20or%20custom%20elements%20without%20a%20role%2E • Low-contrast text. LOTS. Breaking https://github.com/GoogleChrome/modern-web-guidance-src/blob/2d86433cc9f33e00c3d5aa8539326020851b17d7/guides/accessibility/accessibility/guide.md#:~:text=Minimum%20contrast%20standards%3A%20Maintain%204%2E5%3A1%20for%20normal%20text%20and%203%3A1%20for%20large%20text%20or%20icons • Named regions _in_ `<details>`? • `aria-controls` on `<summary>`? • SVG chart values not exposed, navigable. Errors aside, this is over-engineered (for the prompt even), encodes unnecessary dependencies on fonts, is meant for Chrome viewers. Sure, it gets some basics right, but I’d send a team back if they brought this.
While I am loathe to revive this thread, I have to address this:
“These posts make the point that…”
That’s not at all what they say.
1. The first is about MVPs/etc. and accessibility messaging, and does not say bugs are ok.
2. The second is directed *at Google* and asks “Please, if your team cannot explain how the thing satisfies all WCAG Success Criteria at Level AA, then don’t release the thing.”
Adrian Roselli, pH0