Well, it's been a long time since I did an accessibility audit - and indeed it was never my primary role, but yes, I would still do an audit if an organization insisted that they were going to keep an overlay.
Like any other accessibility issue, it's an opportunity to continue to educate. But I mean.. I often provided accessibility advice that was ignored, including cases where I thought the issue was entirely cut and dry.
Maybe I was just not as persuasive as I should have been!
Yes; especially if I was being paid to do an audit. If there was enough time in the contract I would audit the site without the overlay and then I would audit the very same site content with the overlay. The issue is that these overlays rarely if ever do anything, so such a comparison would point that out. Alas, its up to the client to decide what to do with the findings.
not without turning it off to audit the actual code. the overlay would not provide me real results because they could change from day to day depending on what the AI came up with. so any results with it on would not be reproducible.
James Scholes
in reply to Mike Gifford, CPWA • • •Philip Kiff
in reply to Mike Gifford, CPWA • • •Well, it's been a long time since I did an accessibility audit - and indeed it was never my primary role, but yes, I would still do an audit if an organization insisted that they were going to keep an overlay.
Like any other accessibility issue, it's an opportunity to continue to educate. But I mean.. I often provided accessibility advice that was ignored, including cases where I thought the issue was entirely cut and dry.
Maybe I was just not as persuasive as I should have been!
Darrell Hilliker 👨🦯♾️📡
in reply to Mike Gifford, CPWA • • •Martin
in reply to Mike Gifford, CPWA • • •Brian Moore
in reply to Mike Gifford, CPWA • • •