Accessibility Minutes 2013 02 04

From MemberWiki

Jump to: navigation, search


  • Ann Abbott (IBM)
  • Jon Gunderson (University of Illinois) - chair
  • Marc Johlic (IBM)
  • Nick Hoyt (University of Illinois) - scribe
  • Prasanna Bale (University of Illinois)
  • Rich Schwerdtfeger (IBM)

Minutes of the Meeting


JG: Link for Open Accessibility Alliance - new group that replaces Web Best Practices group.

JG: The new group will co-exist with the OpenAjax Alliance Accessibility Task Force. The new group will focus on coding practices, whereas this group will focus more on rules development.

JG: I see the groups as complimentary to each other.

JG: New OAA group will probably consist mainly of Big Ten participants.

Accessibility Extension: new alpha version

JG: Next agenda item: New version of Accessibility Extension with new column in Rules table named Violations (replaces PEPR column).

JG: Also added Pass column.

JG: Each rule category now includes a summary section at the top that shows Elements with Violations and Elements with Manual Checks.

Ann: Is there anything in the tool that states: "all manual checks must be completed or you will not be compliant"?

Ann: Maybe the label should be "Required Manual Checks".

Ann: We also have the concept of potential recommendation.

Nick: I've begun to question whether we need both the concept of Required/Recommended and Violations/Warnings.

JG: The strict ruleset will have very few warnings; whereas the transitional ruleset has quite a few.

Prasanna: I find the summary information confusing.

JG: What does it mean to have more violations than elements with violations? Another concept that could be problematic.

Ann: Could show that x number of elements have multiple violations.

JG: An example of a rule that flips between warnings and violations is the rule for all elements must be contained within a landmark.

Rich: Distinction between recommendations that improve usability as opposed to A-AA-AAA success criteria in WCAG.

Ann: Potential violation is something that the automated checker can't evaluate.

JG: What is diff in RPT between potential violation and manual check?

Rich: Potential violation means that testing tool has found something that doesn't look good, but it can't determine for sure whether there's a violation.

Rich: A different ruleset could generate warnings for the potential violations.

JG: Not much difference between manual check and potential violation.

JG: When a recommended rule fails, what should we call that? Is "warning" okay?

Ann: In RPT, we have potential violations and manual checks. Three-phase procedure: (1) run RPT and fix violations; (2) perform manual checks from checklist; (3) use screen reader to validate accessibility

Nick: Not sure you need both Required and Warnings columns.

JG: Do we keep the term Warning?

Consensus: Okay to use warning.

General consensus is that Pass column is noise.

Personal tools