Reposition AT support tables higher on the page

[mcking65]

Revises the 4 example pages that have AT support tables to move the AT Support section above the source code sections.

Preview links

• Preview alert example page
• Preview button example page
• Preview link example page
• Preview radio example page

Review checklist

• Editorial review byJemma (@a11ydoer)
• N/A: Functional review by reviewer_id
• N/A: Visual design review by reviewer_id
• N/A: Accessibility review by reviewer_id
• N/A: Code review by reviewer_id
• N/A: Test review by reviewer_id

---

WAI Preview Link (Last built on Mon, 26 Jun 2023 16:41:07 GMT).

[css-meeting-bot]

The ARIA Authoring Practices (APG) Task Force just discussed PR2737: Reposition AT support tables higher on the page by mcking65.

The full IRC log of that discussion

<jugglinmike> subtopic: PR2737: Reposition AT support tables higher on the page by mcking65
<jugglinmike> github: https://github.com//pull/2737
<jugglinmike> Matt_King: I don't think this should cause any problems, but I'm wondering if anyone here has an objection to changing the order of sections on the page
<jugglinmike> [no comments]
<jugglinmike> Matt_King: I'll leave this as an editor's thing and see if Jemma has any feedback on it

[daniel-montalvo]

Thanks much @mcking65 for putting this together.

I'd like to take this opportunity to propose further refinements for these tables, including:

• data from more browsers, mainly Firefox, which is currently not showing up
• browsers and ATs versions (or at least specify that we refer to latest versions)
• clarifications for what percentages mean in these context

Maybe all of these need separate PRs, I am just throwing these thoughts in here based on comets that I have received both publicly and privately to start the discussion.

[mcking65]

@daniel-montalvo wrote:

Thanks much @mcking65 for putting this together.

I'd like to take this opportunity to propose further refinements for these tables, including:

• data from more browsers, mainly Firefox, which is currently not showing up

Firefox for Windows is included on all these examples.

The aria-at project has put running the tests with Firefox on macOS further down the priority list. There are not enough people running tests nor the necessary automation.

• browsers and ATs versions (or at least specify that we refer to latest versions)

AT versions are specified in the table.

The aria-at project has elected not to specify browser versions in the reports at this time because:

• The tests are run by people across a time frame that span several days or even a few weeks. It is not feasible to guarantee every tester will complete all the tests with the same browser version. This is especially the case because not all testers can control the version of browser installed on their system.
• It is relatively rare for results to depend on browser version. If the testing team finds a result that is affected by browser version, the test will be repeated using the later version of the browser.
• The aria-at project can't yet guarantee the results reflect latest browser behavior. The test team does not have sufficient capacity to re-run reports for every new browser release. However, later this year after the first implementations of AT Driver are integrated by the aria-at automation workstream, some of the tests will be automatically re-run with every new browser and screen reader release. Once automation can cover all browsers and all screen readers, all reports will be automatically regenerated with every new release of a screen reader or browser.

• clarifications for what percentages mean in these context

Do you have suggestions? There are several ways of interpreting this request. I have been giving the challenge of communicating the meaning of the test results a lot of thought ever since starting the aria-at project. So, I am keen to know whether you have something specific in mind.

Maybe all of these need separate PRs, I am just throwing these thoughts in here based on comets that I have received both publicly and privately to start the discussion.

Thank you for the feedback. It validates aria-at plans. Within the aria-at project, there has been and continues to be discussion and work to address these needs. They have all been part of the roadmap; addressing them is just a matter of continued investment and time.

[css-meeting-bot]

The ARIA Authoring Practices (APG) Task Force just discussed Reposition AT support tables higher on the page.

The full IRC log of that discussion

<jugglinmike> subtopic: Reposition AT support tables higher on the page
<jugglinmike> github: https://github.com//pull/2737
<jugglinmike> Jem: I approved this
<jugglinmike> Matt_King: Then I'll merge it

[a11ydoer]

All the AT tables are located above source code as intended!