Accessibility Minutes 2013 02 04
From MemberWiki
Present
- 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: http://collaborate.athenpro.org/group/open-accessibility-alliance/
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.