paus-tools | Performance, Accessibility, Usability, Security. If it's open-source and should be an NPM module, yo | Accessibility Testing library

Use a here-document

The documentation for axe-core states that you need to specify which rules you intend to test against using axe.run options.

Landmarks are discussed in WCAG 1.3.6., which is a "Level AAA" item. It appears that axe-core is only capable of testing against "Level A" and "Level AA." In your example, the item is not listed by the tool as a WCAG failure, but rather a best-practices recommendation. This may be why it isn't showing up in your other tools.

If you can easily implement this recommendation, then I'd say go ahead and do it. If not, I wouldn't let something like this stop my code from going into production. Landmarks are nice-to-have, but it's far more important that you meet all "Level A" requirements and as many "Level AA" requirements as you reasonably can.

It's worth noting that any automated accessibility testing tool is nothing more than a starting point for manual evaluation. These tools often generate tons of false positives (and sometimes miss important things!) because it's often not possible to algorithmically determine whether something is genuinely useful to human visitors.

I've also seen pages/apps that pass automated tools with no errors (Wave, Axe, etc.), but they are completely impossible to use with assistive technology.

Not a false positive.

The second you gave the

a role you changed it's semantic meaning.

role="banner" is effectively the same as

in HTML5, so you have changed your into a element as far as a computer and assistive technology is concerned.

Remove that role="banner" from your

and it will work as expected (and be semantically correct).

Also while you are tidying things up

is the same as , you should always try to use semantically correct native HTML elements where you can as they will make your mark-up cleaner and they have wider support.

Select only lists which are children of lists and use jQuery's appendTo() method to move them to the previous list element:

Ideal answer

You shouldn't have to manually truncate labels, because that's a pure visual artifact to cop with insufficient space.

CSS should ideally be able to handle this case for you automatically, so that you would just write the full label and don't care at all.

The CSS to do that exists. The property is called text-overflow with the value èllipsis`. Example here

However, very often, and even in recent browsers, CSS support for is very limited and incomplete. IN some browsers, you are even not allowed to change text color. So, applying text-overflow: ellipsis certainly won't work, sadly. IN a ideal world this would be by far the best solution.

Second best answer

You shouldn't have to manually truncate labels. If it can't be done automatically for you in CSS in case you lack space, the next best would probably be to reorganize your layout to make sure you have enough space to see entirely the longest label.

You may have a different aria-label than visible text, but generally it isn't recommanded. Hance the warning of your accessibility checker to remind it to you.

It isn't recommanded because several groups of people can have difficulties. For example, partially sighted people or those having dyslexia, who rely both on visible text and speech synthesis, will read the abbreviation but hear the full tex. It can be very confusing.

Third answer

If you really can't rearrange your layout to make all labels visible in full text, ignore the warning, leave the full text in aria-label and the shortened text visible as it is currently. There are problems for several groups of people, well, but it isn't so bad afterall. It would probably be much worse for accessibility if you decided to switch your < for a custom component. So I would still strongly advice you to keep your whatever the situation. Blind people and keyboard only users will thank you.

However, always remember that warnings are never present for nothing. They point you to a potential problem you'd better to solve. This is definitly not a false positive!

Short Answer

Remove the tabindex.

Long Answer

Headings should not have a tabindex (other than maybe a tabindex="-1", covered below).

Anything with a tabindex is considered to be interactive and it is expected that you have supplied the relevant handlers for focus, click, keyboard keys etc.

Your QA is incorrect on this and is making the software harder to use.

The only time it is appropriate to use a tabindex on a heading is if you need to programatically focus it (for example on an AJAX application where you load a new page in it is a good practice to focus the heading level 1 on the page to let screen reader users know the new page has loaded in.) At this point the only tabindex that is appropriate is tabindex="-1" so that it can only be focused programatically and not via the tab key.

Your QA may think that screen reader users need to be able to focus the headings, this is not the case! They use shortcut keys within their screen reader to access headings on the page.

Also remove it from

as that is also not interactive.

Finally it is likely you do not need tabindex="-1" on the modal itself as when you open the modal you should focus either the first interactive element or the close button (which in your case appears to be the cancel button anyway.), however there may be functionality in your software that I am not aware of so that is just a point to consider.

You need to pass the TestController object as a parameter of the a11() function. So, your code will look as follows:

My suspicion is that you are getting this error as the site you are testing has a content security policy

A Content Security Policy (CSP) allows a website owner to protect their end users by ensuring no malicious third party JS, CSS images etc. are injected into the site. Anything included in the CSP is allowed, anything not included is blocked.

Within a CSP it will block JavaScript eval function, which is required in your programme.

The site owner would have to explicitly allow eval on their site (as it is blocked by default if you have any JS rules in your CSP) by adding unsafe-eval as one of the rules on their CSP.

Taken from the page I linked on CSP:-

'unsafe-eval'

Allows the use of eval() and similar methods for creating code from strings. You must include the single quotes.

The only way you could fix this is by asking the owner of the site to add that to their CSP or by changing whichever function is injecting eval into their site.

If you want another site to test to confirm it is CSP that is blocking your script you can try mine https://klu.io as my CSP is very strict.

Update after conversations

It appears I got the problem correct but not the cause.

This was being caused by the website overriding window.eval to throw an error (basically disabling it). The following fiddle demonstrates this behaviour in it's most basic form.

The below is the right dependency for the non-deprecated AccessibilityChecks I found it here along with many other Espresso testing APIs