My guess is that it would be the risk of exposing the links in the AT's list of links. That's a real risk, but in this case the harm to the user is minimal, since the link is redundant anyway.
-
-
This whole thread started because I believe top sites should lead by example. People are shrugging off accessibility issues because “Google does it.” You have a responsibility. Shipping bad markup with minimal risk should not be acceptable in your case.https://adrianroselli.com/2020/03/i-dont-care-what-google-or-apple-or-whomever-did.html …
1 reply 1 retweet 0 likes -
It's a good thing to care about. I honestly believe that no one on this thread disagrees with the sentiment that it's important for top sites to be accessible & to set an example. It's also true that there is a lot of nuance/hard to capture in brief abt what this looks like
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @briankardell @simevidas and
Even generally speaking, it's probably worth a whole post of its own how these can frequently even be somewhat at odds in practice... I'm not sure I have the oomph to write it myself, but it seems to me that the search team does actually care a lot about doing good
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @briankardell @simevidas and
I'm sure they'll consider what you wrote above, but I think what
@sundress is saying is that at the end of the day a lot of the audit stuff is false positives and offering and answer to the "how" in the poll that you requested (they test with users, and why).1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
For the record, there were no false positives in this case: The ARIA attributes are missing, the contrast is low, and <a tabindex="-1"> is bad markup.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @slightlylate @simevidas and
@sundress, an *actual expert* in this area, took a great deal of time out of her Saturday to explain why the there is often a divergence in the tool output and the quality of the experience. This should have caused us all to ask questions about the tools and our priors.2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @slightlylate @simevidas and
Instead, you've responded with a "for the record..." which might as well be spelled "well, actually, ...". Please, engage expertise with curiosity rather than absolutes. It's the fastest way to learn.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Šime Vidas Retweeted Šime Vidas
Hm, I think we had a pretty good discussion. I consider myself a very curious person, and I hope my responses showed that. Here are some of them, ICYMI: 1. https://twitter.com/simevidas/status/1251276817589248001 … 2. https://twitter.com/simevidas/status/1251286505357742081 … 3. https://twitter.com/simevidas/status/1251289289360642054 … 4.https://twitter.com/simevidas/status/1251306026906902529 …
Šime Vidas added,
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
I'm going to mute this thread now. Suggest you walk away from it for a couple of days and then re-read.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
& Web Standards TL; Blink API OWNER
Named PWAs w/
DMs open. Tweets my own; press@google.com for official comms.