That the browser implementations are generally terrible and wouldn't pass accessibility audits, so all browsers would have to change and then some time to pass for the fixed versions to be widespread.
We didn't discuss browser-specific issues in detail, but I edited some points in my original message that highlight some of the issues that I suspect make it a no-go for accessibility.
Seems to me that this says that the browsers have the accessibility problems and that's what should be fixed. Why does every website developer have to work around this while the browsers get a free pass?
If field validation is "standard HTML" and browsers can't do it in an accessible way, that's squarely a browser problem.
Because in reality browsers can't do much. The API and spec are broken as-is.
I'll quote my top-level comment:
> This is both bad UX and bad for accessibility (you cannot navigate concatenated strings on the accessibility tree). And this isn't even implementation dependent, it's the spec!
> Not using popups for important information is accessibility 101, but browsers cannot afford to do anything else without interfering with the actual document.
Plus it doesn't matter who's to blame: people with accessibility issues need access now.
> Why does every website developer have to work around this while the browsers get a free pass?
Because browser makers are merrily taking that free pass, whether we like it or not, and people who need accessibility allowances need them now, or better still quite some years ago, rather than at some future time after we've nagged the browsers into taking useful action.
It isn't entirely the browser people's fault, there are significant issues in the spec, as already discussed in these comments by people who know more about it than I, and that is part of why they feel justified in taking the free ride, but as some of them were involved in the original specs and they are in a position to propose alternatives & deliver PoC implementations, it is more their responsibility than they think. After all, Google in particular are more than willing & able to invent new specs¹ and throw implementations into production, when there might be marketshare, stalk^H^H^H^H^Hadvertising income, or protection money² on the line.
----
[1] and Apple deliberately break them, old or new, in a fit of pique!
[2] Nice app/extension you have there, it would be a shame if it started failing store inclusion reviews, or if APIs had breaking changes for our benefit underneath you.
We didn't discuss browser-specific issues in detail, but I edited some points in my original message that highlight some of the issues that I suspect make it a no-go for accessibility.