(Inactive) Web Best Practices: Teleconference Details

Teleconference details


1.0 Review updated conceptual model of web accessibility evaluation

2.0 Features for Web Accessibility Coding Practices

3.0 User Scenarios
  • Who would use the resource
  • What types of tasks would they be trying to complete


1. Schedule of Meetings
  • No meeting June 6th
  • We will meet on May 30th

2. Update of the Conceptual Model
  • https://trac.ainspector.org/design/wiki/interaction-design/conceptual-model
  • NH: Section B is web resource definitions was updated
  • NH: Helps define target resources
  • NH: No changes in sections in C or D
  • NH: Rules have a property of “target resources”
  • NH: I am still working on the Q&A page
  • NH: I am still working on the difference between target resources and node results
  • JG: Ken have you looked at this
  • KP: A little, I am assuming this will relate to FAE
  • NH: We want to create common terminology and relationships between tools and support resources
  • TW: Compliance share has customization capabilities
  • JG: jon talks about rule scoping
  • NH: For elements with page scope there are still target resources, page level rules are not dependent on a particular element passing or failing
  • JG: Any other comments?

3. User Scenarios
  • JG: How do we think people will be using it?
  • KP: I am familiar with web best practices
  • KP: How will these be different
  • JG: Some of the senarios are: Violaion and google searches
  • KP: Some people are looking for general information about accessibility
  • KP: Context for why making web sites accessible, guided drill down
  • JG: Who are they?
  • KP: Make the assumption that people have a tasked with accessibility
  • KP: A very common assumption that an office associate has responsibility for updating content on a CMS
  • JG: Is this someone using WTSIWYG editor or wiki markup
  • KP: Content authors may not even have basic accessibility
  • JG: Do these people have any way of evaluating the accessibility of what they make?
  • KP: no, they would need a tool
  • KP: Could be assigned part of their orientation
  • KP: If you are going to talk about headings, you need some type of warmup and why they should be used
  • TW: I totally agree with this
  • TW: We are going to require new employees to take an accessibility course
  • JG: This is more a content providers issue, which is much more governed by the authoring environment in their CMS
  • JG: These resources need to be tied to the editors
  • KP: There is wiki markup patterns
  • JG: If these people why would they come?
  • KP: They would not come on their own, some type of scan they might come
  • KP: Probably outside the initial orientation they will not come
  • KP: They need some type of toolbar or some automated feedback
  • KP: Work flow in Drupal, accessibility might be a check
  • JG: Other senarios
  • BH: People with disabilities might be coming
  • JG: What would they want out of it?
  • BH: They would want to find information to send as feedback to improve accessibility
  • JG: What about coders and designers?
  • KP: It is really easy to get lost in WCAG 2.0
  • KP: Some of the ARIA specification is OK for this, OAA examples are more concrete
  • KP: Most developers do not know much about ARIA
  • KP: They are often using toolkits that do not take into account accessibility
  • KP: We need to identify toolkits that do support accessibility
  • KP: Some toolkits only provide half the accessibility
  • KP: role=application can cause problems, people need to know what problems
  • KP: How to use something that meets specification
  • JG: Role=application may be removed
  • NH: These type of questions:
    • How do a fix a particular problem
    • Why does this matter to people with disabilities
    • How does this relate to WCAG 2.0
  • KP: Compliance is an important feature

4. Features for Web Accessibility Coding Practices