After some discussion about Sign In with #Google pop-ups. Am I right that they actually violate #WCAG? I'll need to find this criterion, but I'm pretty sure there was something about intrusive pop-ups. #Accessibility
If the pop-up completely covers a focusable element on the page it would fail WCAG SC 2.4.11, Focus Not Obscured (Minimum). If it partially covers one, that fails the Enhanced, Level AAA, criterion.
I don't think it fails SC 2.2.4 Interruptions, also Level AAA, because it happens on first page load and doesn't keep happening.
There may be others, depending on how it's implemented.
@cwilcox808 2.4.11 only applies at the point when an element becomes focused, not just to any element that could become focused. So a popup only fails if you can TAB out of it to an element underneath it *and* it can’t be closed by pressing ESC.
@siblingpastry @cwilcox808 The easiest to reproduce is: open Chrome and go to askubuntu.com/. If you're not logged in to StackExchange, you'll get this thing.
When I go to that page, I don't get a Sign in with Google, I get a cookie banner which *is* automatically focused. It does have the problem James describes, you can Tab out of it to other elements on the page but it can't be closed by pressing Esc. @siblingpastry
3.2.2 and 3.2.5 talk about unexpected changes of context, and opening a popup then moving focus to it is a change of context, but the criterion hinges on whether that change is “unexpected”.
It could be argued that this kind of popup-login pattern is quite common, and therefore not unexpected. If I was auditing, I wouldn’t fail them for that.
So yeah I share your frustration and annoyance with this pattern, but I don’t think it’s a WCAG failure.
@siblingpastry Not to argue, just curious: if I open a web page or go to another web page on the same site and I'm getting this straight away in my face, would you also consider it not unexpected?
Well it’s subjective to each user, and therefore subjective to assess. But I mean — you know it might happen, so it’s not unexpected for you is it, it’s just annoying. 🙃
@siblingpastry I mean, when I open a webpage, I expect to inspect it with my virtual cursor and not be trapped in a Login dialog. that's the difference between this approach and a traditional login form: with the form I can see what's the page about (say, I don't know the website and navigate there for the first time). So my point is that it's disrupting for those who want to familiarize themselves with the site. Like, imagine I give you a link to something.fancy.name, you have no idea about what it is. You open the page and you're immediately trapped in this dialog. You even don't know whether you want to sign in or not, you didn't inspect the page!
That’s a very good point, and you could make an argument to say that it should fail for that reason. A lot of this stuff is quite subjective and difficult to assess.
@siblingpastry I have no way to predict whether a given website will be using Google as just one of its many login providers, before I visit and get this dialogue in my face. From that point of view, could we reasonably claim that if something is impossible to predict, it's also unexpected when it does happen?
I would only truly expect a Google related login prompt to be forced on me if visiting a website owned by Google. I don't much enjoy the idea of disabled people expecting bad behaviour by default, and hence it becoming normalised.
Meanwhile, if a website offered 15 social providers and they all followed this behaviour, it would be hugely disappointing if WCAG had nothing to say about the web essentially becoming un-browsable.
No. Modals or popups are not in and of themselves inaccessible. It depends on how they're coded. If focus stays inside the modal, there's a clear way to leave it and everything inside is accessible, then you're good to go. #accessibility
Curtis Wilcox
in reply to André Polykanine • • •If the pop-up completely covers a focusable element on the page it would fail WCAG SC 2.4.11, Focus Not Obscured (Minimum). If it partially covers one, that fails the Enhanced, Level AAA, criterion.
I don't think it fails SC 2.2.4
Interruptions, also Level AAA, because it happens on first page load and doesn't keep happening.
There may be others, depending on how it's implemented.
w3.org/WAI/WCAG22/Understandin…
w3.org/WAI/WCAG22/Understandin…
James Edwards
in reply to Curtis Wilcox • • •André Polykanine
in reply to James Edwards • • •Curtis Wilcox
in reply to André Polykanine • • •@siblingpastry
André Polykanine
in reply to Curtis Wilcox • • •Curtis Wilcox
in reply to André Polykanine • • •Nope, still no Sign in to Google prompt.
I've certainly seen it elsewhere, I can't think of a particular site though.
@siblingpastry
James Edwards
in reply to André Polykanine • • •3.2.2 and 3.2.5 talk about unexpected changes of context, and opening a popup then moving focus to it is a change of context, but the criterion hinges on whether that change is “unexpected”.
It could be argued that this kind of popup-login pattern is quite common, and therefore not unexpected. If I was auditing, I wouldn’t fail them for that.
So yeah I share your frustration and annoyance with this pattern, but I don’t think it’s a WCAG failure.
André Polykanine
in reply to James Edwards • • •James Edwards
in reply to André Polykanine • • •André Polykanine
in reply to James Edwards • • •James Edwards
in reply to André Polykanine • • •James Scholes
in reply to James Edwards • • •@siblingpastry I have no way to predict whether a given website will be using Google as just one of its many login providers, before I visit and get this dialogue in my face. From that point of view, could we reasonably claim that if something is impossible to predict, it's also unexpected when it does happen?
I would only truly expect a Google related login prompt to be forced on me if visiting a website owned by Google. I don't much enjoy the idea of disabled people expecting bad behaviour by default, and hence it becoming normalised.
Meanwhile, if a website offered 15 social providers and they all followed this behaviour, it would be hugely disappointing if WCAG had nothing to say about the web essentially becoming un-browsable.
André Polykanine
in reply to James Scholes • • •Darrell Hilliker 👨🦯♾️📡
in reply to André Polykanine • • •