Is window.confirm() accessible?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ height:90px;width:728px;box-sizing:border-box;
}
Are native browser modals like window.confirm, window.alert, and window.prompt accessible, or is it better to implement something custom?
javascript accessibility
asked 6 hours ago
skaterdav85skaterdav85
2,41731116
add a comment |
Are native browser modals like window.confirm, window.alert, and window.prompt accessible, or is it better to implement something custom?
javascript accessibility
asked 6 hours ago
skaterdav85skaterdav85
2,41731116
What do you mean with accessible? If you want to give it any style, then no, they are not
– Marcelo Origoni
6 hours ago
2
@MarceloOrigoni I think the OP is talking about people with disabilities.
– VFDan
5 hours ago
Even if screen readers can read these modals'contents, remember they will block your page at least js and in some browsers (e.g Chrome) all UI related content too. These should not be used in modern web.
– Kaiido
4 hours ago
add a comment |
Are native browser modals like window.confirm, window.alert, and window.prompt accessible, or is it better to implement something custom?
javascript accessibility
asked 6 hours ago
skaterdav85skaterdav85
2,41731116
Are native browser modals like window.confirm, window.alert, and window.prompt accessible, or is it better to implement something custom?
javascript accessibility
javascript accessibility
asked 6 hours ago
skaterdav85skaterdav85
2,41731116
asked 6 hours ago
skaterdav85skaterdav85
2,41731116
asked 6 hours ago
skaterdav85skaterdav85
2,41731116
asked 6 hours ago
skaterdav85skaterdav85
2,41731116
asked 6 hours ago
skaterdav85skaterdav85
2,41731116
2,41731116
What do you mean with accessible? If you want to give it any style, then no, they are not
– Marcelo Origoni
6 hours ago
2
@MarceloOrigoni I think the OP is talking about people with disabilities.
– VFDan
5 hours ago
Even if screen readers can read these modals'contents, remember they will block your page at least js and in some browsers (e.g Chrome) all UI related content too. These should not be used in modern web.
– Kaiido
4 hours ago
add a comment |
What do you mean with accessible? If you want to give it any style, then no, they are not
– Marcelo Origoni
6 hours ago
2
@MarceloOrigoni I think the OP is talking about people with disabilities.
– VFDan
5 hours ago
Even if screen readers can read these modals'contents, remember they will block your page at least js and in some browsers (e.g Chrome) all UI related content too. These should not be used in modern web.
– Kaiido
4 hours ago
What do you mean with accessible? If you want to give it any style, then no, they are not
– Marcelo Origoni
6 hours ago
What do you mean with accessible? If you want to give it any style, then no, they are not
– Marcelo Origoni
6 hours ago
2
2
@MarceloOrigoni I think the OP is talking about people with disabilities.
– VFDan
5 hours ago
@MarceloOrigoni I think the OP is talking about people with disabilities.
– VFDan
5 hours ago
Even if screen readers can read these modals'contents, remember they will block your page at least js and in some browsers (e.g Chrome) all UI related content too. These should not be used in modern web.
– Kaiido
4 hours ago
Even if screen readers can read these modals'contents, remember they will block your page at least js and in some browsers (e.g Chrome) all UI related content too. These should not be used in modern web.
– Kaiido
4 hours ago
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
There isn't a whole lot of info out there on this, but I believe the answer is yes (for the most part). It seems that previously screen readers didn't have support for alerts/window dialogs but screen readers have come to support these in today's world.
"Although JavaScript pop-up alert boxes were once discouraged by accessibility experts, modern screen readers and browsers provide excellent support for the basic JavaScript alert box."
http://accessibility.psu.edu/scripts/alertboxes/#basic
https://www.w3.org/TR/2018/WD-wai-aria-practices-1.2-20180719/examples/dialog-modal/alertdialog.html
Reading through the w3 documentation, it seems as though it's more preferred to make your own and specify the appropriate aria attributes
answered 6 hours ago
mwilsonmwilson
3,28432148
add a comment |
Update: Read the bottom of this answer. According to this answer, they are accessible to most screen-readers, but not JAWS (which as of this December 2017 article has 46% of the market share. So, 46% of the people using screen-readers uses a screen-reader that does not support window.confirm, so it is probably better to make a custom dialog box with the respective aria-* attributes.
Edit: According to a comment from Travis J., the github issue shows that is was a Chrome bug, which has been patched. However, if you want to keep support for older versions of Chrome, then you can make a custom dialog box, or just make a custom one if you want to add CSS, make more buttons, etc.
answered 5 hours ago
VFDanVFDan
303213
The JAWS github issue for this from 2017, github.com/FreedomScientific/VFO-standards-support/issues/16, indicates it was a chrome bug, which chrome subsequently patched, bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=779501. While using aria attributes are a good idea, I think that the information in the preamble here may be citing old sources.
– Travis J
4 hours ago
@TravisJ Thank you, I edited it to add that info.
– VFDan
4 hours ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
StackExchange.snippets.init();
});
});
}, "code-snippets");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f55583360%2fis-window-confirm-accessible%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
There isn't a whole lot of info out there on this, but I believe the answer is yes (for the most part). It seems that previously screen readers didn't have support for alerts/window dialogs but screen readers have come to support these in today's world.
"Although JavaScript pop-up alert boxes were once discouraged by accessibility experts, modern screen readers and browsers provide excellent support for the basic JavaScript alert box."
http://accessibility.psu.edu/scripts/alertboxes/#basic
https://www.w3.org/TR/2018/WD-wai-aria-practices-1.2-20180719/examples/dialog-modal/alertdialog.html
Reading through the w3 documentation, it seems as though it's more preferred to make your own and specify the appropriate aria attributes
answered 6 hours ago
mwilsonmwilson
3,28432148
add a comment |
There isn't a whole lot of info out there on this, but I believe the answer is yes (for the most part). It seems that previously screen readers didn't have support for alerts/window dialogs but screen readers have come to support these in today's world.
"Although JavaScript pop-up alert boxes were once discouraged by accessibility experts, modern screen readers and browsers provide excellent support for the basic JavaScript alert box."
http://accessibility.psu.edu/scripts/alertboxes/#basic
https://www.w3.org/TR/2018/WD-wai-aria-practices-1.2-20180719/examples/dialog-modal/alertdialog.html
Reading through the w3 documentation, it seems as though it's more preferred to make your own and specify the appropriate aria attributes
answered 6 hours ago
mwilsonmwilson
3,28432148
add a comment |
There isn't a whole lot of info out there on this, but I believe the answer is yes (for the most part). It seems that previously screen readers didn't have support for alerts/window dialogs but screen readers have come to support these in today's world.
"Although JavaScript pop-up alert boxes were once discouraged by accessibility experts, modern screen readers and browsers provide excellent support for the basic JavaScript alert box."
http://accessibility.psu.edu/scripts/alertboxes/#basic
https://www.w3.org/TR/2018/WD-wai-aria-practices-1.2-20180719/examples/dialog-modal/alertdialog.html
Reading through the w3 documentation, it seems as though it's more preferred to make your own and specify the appropriate aria attributes
answered 6 hours ago
mwilsonmwilson
3,28432148
There isn't a whole lot of info out there on this, but I believe the answer is yes (for the most part). It seems that previously screen readers didn't have support for alerts/window dialogs but screen readers have come to support these in today's world.
"Although JavaScript pop-up alert boxes were once discouraged by accessibility experts, modern screen readers and browsers provide excellent support for the basic JavaScript alert box."
http://accessibility.psu.edu/scripts/alertboxes/#basic
https://www.w3.org/TR/2018/WD-wai-aria-practices-1.2-20180719/examples/dialog-modal/alertdialog.html
Reading through the w3 documentation, it seems as though it's more preferred to make your own and specify the appropriate aria attributes
answered 6 hours ago
mwilsonmwilson
3,28432148
answered 6 hours ago
mwilsonmwilson
3,28432148
answered 6 hours ago
mwilsonmwilson
3,28432148
answered 6 hours ago
mwilsonmwilson
3,28432148
3,28432148
add a comment |
add a comment |
Update: Read the bottom of this answer. According to this answer, they are accessible to most screen-readers, but not JAWS (which as of this December 2017 article has 46% of the market share. So, 46% of the people using screen-readers uses a screen-reader that does not support window.confirm, so it is probably better to make a custom dialog box with the respective aria-* attributes.
Edit: According to a comment from Travis J., the github issue shows that is was a Chrome bug, which has been patched. However, if you want to keep support for older versions of Chrome, then you can make a custom dialog box, or just make a custom one if you want to add CSS, make more buttons, etc.
answered 5 hours ago
VFDanVFDan
303213
The JAWS github issue for this from 2017, github.com/FreedomScientific/VFO-standards-support/issues/16, indicates it was a chrome bug, which chrome subsequently patched, bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=779501. While using aria attributes are a good idea, I think that the information in the preamble here may be citing old sources.
– Travis J
4 hours ago
@TravisJ Thank you, I edited it to add that info.
– VFDan
4 hours ago
add a comment |
Update: Read the bottom of this answer. According to this answer, they are accessible to most screen-readers, but not JAWS (which as of this December 2017 article has 46% of the market share. So, 46% of the people using screen-readers uses a screen-reader that does not support window.confirm, so it is probably better to make a custom dialog box with the respective aria-* attributes.
Edit: According to a comment from Travis J., the github issue shows that is was a Chrome bug, which has been patched. However, if you want to keep support for older versions of Chrome, then you can make a custom dialog box, or just make a custom one if you want to add CSS, make more buttons, etc.
answered 5 hours ago
VFDanVFDan
303213
The JAWS github issue for this from 2017, github.com/FreedomScientific/VFO-standards-support/issues/16, indicates it was a chrome bug, which chrome subsequently patched, bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=779501. While using aria attributes are a good idea, I think that the information in the preamble here may be citing old sources.
– Travis J
4 hours ago
@TravisJ Thank you, I edited it to add that info.
– VFDan
4 hours ago
add a comment |
Update: Read the bottom of this answer. According to this answer, they are accessible to most screen-readers, but not JAWS (which as of this December 2017 article has 46% of the market share. So, 46% of the people using screen-readers uses a screen-reader that does not support window.confirm, so it is probably better to make a custom dialog box with the respective aria-* attributes.
Edit: According to a comment from Travis J., the github issue shows that is was a Chrome bug, which has been patched. However, if you want to keep support for older versions of Chrome, then you can make a custom dialog box, or just make a custom one if you want to add CSS, make more buttons, etc.
answered 5 hours ago
VFDanVFDan
303213
Update: Read the bottom of this answer. According to this answer, they are accessible to most screen-readers, but not JAWS (which as of this December 2017 article has 46% of the market share. So, 46% of the people using screen-readers uses a screen-reader that does not support window.confirm, so it is probably better to make a custom dialog box with the respective aria-* attributes.
Edit: According to a comment from Travis J., the github issue shows that is was a Chrome bug, which has been patched. However, if you want to keep support for older versions of Chrome, then you can make a custom dialog box, or just make a custom one if you want to add CSS, make more buttons, etc.
answered 5 hours ago
VFDanVFDan
303213
edited 4 hours ago
answered 5 hours ago
VFDanVFDan
303213
answered 5 hours ago
VFDanVFDan
303213
answered 5 hours ago
VFDanVFDan
303213
303213
The JAWS github issue for this from 2017, github.com/FreedomScientific/VFO-standards-support/issues/16, indicates it was a chrome bug, which chrome subsequently patched, bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=779501. While using aria attributes are a good idea, I think that the information in the preamble here may be citing old sources.
– Travis J
4 hours ago
@TravisJ Thank you, I edited it to add that info.
– VFDan
4 hours ago
add a comment |
The JAWS github issue for this from 2017, github.com/FreedomScientific/VFO-standards-support/issues/16, indicates it was a chrome bug, which chrome subsequently patched, bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=779501. While using aria attributes are a good idea, I think that the information in the preamble here may be citing old sources.
– Travis J
4 hours ago
@TravisJ Thank you, I edited it to add that info.
– VFDan
4 hours ago
The JAWS github issue for this from 2017, github.com/FreedomScientific/VFO-standards-support/issues/16, indicates it was a chrome bug, which chrome subsequently patched, bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=779501. While using aria attributes are a good idea, I think that the information in the preamble here may be citing old sources.
– Travis J
4 hours ago
The JAWS github issue for this from 2017, github.com/FreedomScientific/VFO-standards-support/issues/16, indicates it was a chrome bug, which chrome subsequently patched, bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=779501. While using aria attributes are a good idea, I think that the information in the preamble here may be citing old sources.
– Travis J
4 hours ago
@TravisJ Thank you, I edited it to add that info.
– VFDan
4 hours ago
@TravisJ Thank you, I edited it to add that info.
– VFDan
4 hours ago
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f55583360%2fis-window-confirm-accessible%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
What do you mean with accessible? If you want to give it any style, then no, they are not
– Marcelo Origoni
6 hours ago
2
@MarceloOrigoni I think the OP is talking about people with disabilities.
– VFDan
5 hours ago
Even if screen readers can read these modals'contents, remember they will block your page at least js and in some browsers (e.g Chrome) all UI related content too. These should not be used in modern web.
– Kaiido
4 hours ago