[chrismorgan]

The significant majority of accessibility issues found by those sorts of large-range studies are comparatively minor, and often completely spurious. I have been decidedly unimpressed with every such study that I have delved into the results of.

(I know you’re arguing against someone claiming 100% accessibility coverage as a requirement, but I wanted to point out that figures like 98.8% are grossly inflated and quite meaningless.)

[eurasiantiger]

Those minor or spurious issues may well disable a disabled person even more.

That said, the entire accessibility scene is fundamentally broken on the technical side and full of snake oil salesmen on the business side.

Anxiously waiting for WCAG to finish an actual standard, and for vendors to actually implement it.

[chrismorgan]

I’m well familiar with the issues of accessibility, and I use the words “minor” and “spurious” deliberately. Most especially, when I say “spurious”, I mean false positives.

[eurasiantiger]

I have yet to see a false positive. It might appear that way to someone only testing on a single platform, a single browser and a single reader, macOS + Chrome + VoiceOver for some reason being the usual combo even though VO doesn’t work right with Chrome.

Typically devs will also ignore reader shortcuts and instead use tab navigation, which is not how screen reader users do things because it bypasses screen reader navigation altogether.

Do you know for a fact that the ”false” positives weren’t actual problems for someone using NVDA or JAWS shortcuts to navigate on Firefox on Windows, or some other combination of reader + navigation + browser + OS?

Everything is broken and nobody can test or fix everything.