Is window.confirm() accessible? The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are In Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern) The Ask Question Wizard is Live! Data science time! April 2019 and salary with experienceAccessibility of confirm dialog in chromeJavaScript post request like a form submitjQuery/JavaScript: accessing contents of an iframeCheck if object is a jQuery objectStoring Objects in HTML5 localStorageWhat is the best way to detect a mobile device in jQuery?Open a URL in a new tab (and not a new window) using JavaScriptHow to decide when to use Node.js?How can I add new array elements at the beginning of an array in Javascript?How does Access-Control-Allow-Origin header work?Relation between CommonJS, AMD and RequireJS?
Problems with Ubuntu mount /tmp
How did the audience guess the pentatonic scale in Bobby McFerrin's presentation?
How do I add random spotting to the same face in cycles?
A pet rabbit called Belle
Why not take a picture of a closer black hole?
Are spiders unable to hurt humans, especially very small spiders?
Can a 1st-level character have an ability score above 18?
He got a vote 80% that of Emmanuel Macron’s
Difference between "generating set" and free product?
How to test the equality of two Pearson correlation coefficients computed from the same sample?
Why can't wing-mounted spoilers be used to steepen approaches?
Is it ethical to upload a automatically generated paper to a non peer-reviewed site as part of a larger research?
Is it ok to offer lower paid work as a trial period before negotiating for a full-time job?
Semisimplicity of the category of coherent sheaves?
When did F become S in typeography, and why?
Can the DM override racial traits?
Simulating Exploding Dice
I could not break this equation. Please help me
How are presidential pardons supposed to be used?
What can I do if neighbor is blocking my solar panels intentionally?
Working through the single responsibility principle (SRP) in Python when calls are expensive
Change bounding box of math glyphs in LuaTeX
What is special about square numbers here?
Do working physicists consider Newtonian mechanics to be "falsified"?
Is window.confirm() accessible?
The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are In
Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)
The Ask Question Wizard is Live!
Data science time! April 2019 and salary with experienceAccessibility of confirm dialog in chromeJavaScript post request like a form submitjQuery/JavaScript: accessing contents of an iframeCheck if object is a jQuery objectStoring Objects in HTML5 localStorageWhat is the best way to detect a mobile device in jQuery?Open a URL in a new tab (and not a new window) using JavaScriptHow to decide when to use Node.js?How can I add new array elements at the beginning of an array in Javascript?How does Access-Control-Allow-Origin header work?Relation between CommonJS, AMD and RequireJS?
.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 Apr 9 at 0:02
skaterdav85skaterdav85
2,43731117
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 Apr 9 at 0:02
skaterdav85skaterdav85
2,43731117
What do you mean with accessible? If you want to give it any style, then no, they are not
– Marcelo Origoni
Apr 9 at 0:05
2
@MarceloOrigoni I think the OP is talking about people with disabilities.
– VFDan
Apr 9 at 0:22
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
Apr 9 at 1:57
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 Apr 9 at 0:02
skaterdav85skaterdav85
2,43731117
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 Apr 9 at 0:02
skaterdav85skaterdav85
2,43731117
asked Apr 9 at 0:02
skaterdav85skaterdav85
2,43731117
asked Apr 9 at 0:02
skaterdav85skaterdav85
2,43731117
asked Apr 9 at 0:02
skaterdav85skaterdav85
2,43731117
asked Apr 9 at 0:02
skaterdav85skaterdav85
2,43731117
2,43731117
What do you mean with accessible? If you want to give it any style, then no, they are not
– Marcelo Origoni
Apr 9 at 0:05
2
@MarceloOrigoni I think the OP is talking about people with disabilities.
– VFDan
Apr 9 at 0:22
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
Apr 9 at 1:57
add a comment |
What do you mean with accessible? If you want to give it any style, then no, they are not
– Marcelo Origoni
Apr 9 at 0:05
2
@MarceloOrigoni I think the OP is talking about people with disabilities.
– VFDan
Apr 9 at 0:22
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
Apr 9 at 1:57
What do you mean with accessible? If you want to give it any style, then no, they are not
– Marcelo Origoni
Apr 9 at 0:05
What do you mean with accessible? If you want to give it any style, then no, they are not
– Marcelo Origoni
Apr 9 at 0:05
2
2
@MarceloOrigoni I think the OP is talking about people with disabilities.
– VFDan
Apr 9 at 0:22
@MarceloOrigoni I think the OP is talking about people with disabilities.
– VFDan
Apr 9 at 0:22
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
Apr 9 at 1:57
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
Apr 9 at 1:57
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 Apr 9 at 0:14
mwilsonmwilson
3,31932149
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 Apr 9 at 0:18
VFDanVFDan
405213
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
Apr 9 at 1:25
@TravisJ Thank you, I edited it to add that info.
– VFDan
Apr 9 at 1:43
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 Apr 9 at 0:14
mwilsonmwilson
3,31932149
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 Apr 9 at 0:14
mwilsonmwilson
3,31932149
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 Apr 9 at 0:14
mwilsonmwilson
3,31932149
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 Apr 9 at 0:14
mwilsonmwilson
3,31932149
answered Apr 9 at 0:14
mwilsonmwilson
3,31932149
answered Apr 9 at 0:14
mwilsonmwilson
3,31932149
answered Apr 9 at 0:14
mwilsonmwilson
3,31932149
3,31932149
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 Apr 9 at 0:18
VFDanVFDan
405213
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
Apr 9 at 1:25
@TravisJ Thank you, I edited it to add that info.
– VFDan
Apr 9 at 1:43
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 Apr 9 at 0:18
VFDanVFDan
405213
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
Apr 9 at 1:25
@TravisJ Thank you, I edited it to add that info.
– VFDan
Apr 9 at 1:43
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 Apr 9 at 0:18
VFDanVFDan
405213
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 Apr 9 at 0:18
VFDanVFDan
405213
edited Apr 9 at 1:43
answered Apr 9 at 0:18
VFDanVFDan
405213
answered Apr 9 at 0:18
VFDanVFDan
405213
answered Apr 9 at 0:18
VFDanVFDan
405213
405213
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
Apr 9 at 1:25
@TravisJ Thank you, I edited it to add that info.
– VFDan
Apr 9 at 1:43
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
Apr 9 at 1:25
@TravisJ Thank you, I edited it to add that info.
– VFDan
Apr 9 at 1:43
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
Apr 9 at 1:25
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
Apr 9 at 1:25
@TravisJ Thank you, I edited it to add that info.
– VFDan
Apr 9 at 1:43
@TravisJ Thank you, I edited it to add that info.
– VFDan
Apr 9 at 1:43
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
Apr 9 at 0:05
2
@MarceloOrigoni I think the OP is talking about people with disabilities.
– VFDan
Apr 9 at 0:22
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
Apr 9 at 1:57