Accessibility Minutes 2011 08 22

From MemberWiki

Jump to: navigation, search



  • Jon Gunderson (University of Illinois - Co-Chair)
  • Ann Abbott (IBM)
  • Rich Schwerdtfeger (IBM - Co-Chair)
  • Marc Johlic (IBM)- Scribe
  • Prasanna Bale (University Of Illinois)
  • Nick Hoyt



Jon: Any comments on Rules Format?

Rich: Is it new making it open source?

Jon: Nothing new - we can take that out

Jon removed it

Rich: Some of the feedback from dev community is they don't like all the potential violations. They view them as false positives. Is there an abundance of PV.

Jon: Always an issue because every success criterion could have potential violations. Part of the tool could be configured to not tell about PV


Jon: Or user could select based on priority code. Could be used to filter PV that we think could be more important that other PV.

Jon: The priority doesnt' have anything to do with Severity

Jon: It's just another concept that can be used for filtering

Nick: Are there some rules where PV demands a manual check more than others?

Jon: Kind of a judgment call - what's more important to one group of people vs another.

Jon: We could just take out PV for things where we have programmaticly determined rules

Ann: Flip side is that folks could always annotate report and explain why they feel they are not violoations

Jon: Perhaps we just limit PVs to items that we can't test programmatically

Nick: We need to be careful - if we have too many manual checks things may become too diluted

Jon: First versions of FAE did not include manual checks because people tended to just ignore them anyway

Jon: Have rules that if you point to the same href but have different link text they will tell you to check - things that can determined like that.

Jon: We will limit PVs to Success Criteria that cannot be tested programmatically

1. Proposed title rules


TITLE_1: The page must contain exactly one title element and it must contain content. Recommendations

TITLE_2: If there is no MAIN landmark, the page should contain one and no more than two H1 elements and the H1 elements must have content

TITLE 3: If there is no MAIN landmark, The content of H1 should not only come from the ALT text of IMG elements

TITLE 4: If there is no MAIN landmark, The content of the H1 elements should be a subset of the content of the TITLE elements Potential Violation

TITLE_5: The title should uniquely describe the content and purpose of the page

2. Landmark rules


LANDMARK_1: Every page must have at least one MAIN landmark

LANDMARK_2: If there is more than one landmark of the same type, each landmark must have its own unique label Recommendations

LANDMARK_3: All content must be contained a landmark

LANDMARK_4: Lists of mostly links that are not contained in a MAIN landmark, should be contained in a NAVIGATION landmark

LANDMARK_5: The text content of landmark labels should be concise (less than 65 characters) (English) Potential Violations

LANDMARK_6: Landmark labels should uniquely describe purpose of the section of the page

LANDMARK_7: Landmarks and their labels should be used consistently between pages

Rich: Should be either that you do have a Main landmark - or - the H1 rules

Jon: Landmark_3 will be a big change

Rich: Agreed but that is what we are following in IBM - all content must be in a landmark - no orphaned content

LANDMARK_4 may be more of a Recommendation

Jon: LANDMARK_5 would be an English only rule

Rich: Do you want to make this a programmatic check?

Rich: Is there a WCAG checkpoint for that? Around being concise?

LANDMARK_5 should be more of a Potential Recommendation

LANDMARK_6 AND 7 should be removed for this first cut where we are limiting PVs

Jon: Depending on interpretation of WCAG 4.1.2, LANDMARK_3 could be considered a violation

Jon: May need to change to "all visible content"

Proposal is that LANDMARK 1, 2, & 3 be violations

Nick: Going back to Titles - would we keep TITLE 1 AND TITLE 5 as Violations?

Jon: Yes - and TITLE 2, 3, 4 would be removed

Jon: We could have a legacy / WCAG 2.0 ruleset for TITLE 2, 3, 4

Jon: Depends also on if WCAG WG accepts concept of all content being contained in a Landmark

Jon: If they don't buy into that, then we may want to keep our Recommended Titling rules

3. Heading Rules


HEADING_1: Headings must contain content

HEADING_2: Headings within a landmark should be structured, if no landmarks all headings after the last H1 should be structured Recommendations

HEADING_3: Headings within the same level should be unique

HEADING_4: The text content of an heading should not only come from the alt attribute value of img elements.

HEADING_5: The text content of headings should be concise (less than 65 characters) (English) Potential Violations

HEADING_6: Heading content should describe the section

Call Ended at 2:00pm Eastern

Personal tools