Accessibility Minutes 2012 11 26

From MemberWiki

Present

• Marc Johlic (IBM)
• Jon Gunderson (University of Illinois)
• Prasanna Bale (University of Illinois)
• Nicholas Hoyt (University of Illinois)
• Mike Scott (Illinois Department of Human Services)

Minutes

JG: New version 14 of Cache Inspector released

JG: Includes video/audio checks, mostly manual

JG: Need to look into ways of identifying if captions are present

JG: Need to look into dynamic rendering, e.g., one version for desktop OSes, another for smartphones/tablets

JG: Involving HTML 4 object & embed; HTML 5 video & audio

JG: Will update Wiki today or tomorrow....

JG: What does it mean to have a "1.0" ruleset?

NH: Multiple rulesets: FAE, IITAA, current Inspector tools

NH: Additional question: How do we compare the new rulesets to previous ones, including IBM's?

JG: If you were to recommend to developers, what would the ruleset have to test?

MJ: As much of WCAG as possible, down to AA

MJ: At least one rule for each A and AA criteria

MS: WCAG 2.0 harmonization, plus "best practices" as bonus

NH: Agree w/ at least one rule for each WCAG A & AA. Interesting to see mapping to our new rule categories.

NH: Plus ARIA

JG: Two types of ARIA rules: (1) validation (e.g., valid values) when used

JG: (2) Is it present when it should be

JG: E.g., if onmousein/out events are present, should we also required onfocus/blur? Or is it more complex?

JG: Also, when/how do headings/landmarks rules apply and/or interrelate?

NH: Script-related ARIA rules may be very complex -- maybe this shouldn't be in 1.0

JG: Include ARIA validation rules in 1.0?

NH: Rather than looking at "low hanging fruit" (e.g., ARIA validation), what conceptually makes sense in 1.0?

JG: ARIA validation related to WCAG 4.1.2

JG: Don't want to limit it by timeframe, e.g., what we can have done by January 1

JG: Some previous rules, e.g., onmouseover requires onfocus, may no longer be practical/appropriate

NH: How many rules do we want in 1.0?

NH: Or do we just let it expand to what we need it to be?

JG: Do we need a triage ruleset?

JG: Small set of rules -- if you don't pass, we don't do any more testing.

MS: Triage could be very useful.

MS: Maybe 1.0 should be limited to scope that we can get completed in relatively short term

NH: Triage would look at a few things: image alt, heading structure, form field labels, tab order

NH: If these don't pass, don't continue testing, recommend repair, then come back later

MJ: Triage seems to make sense. More rules than that are already created -- would we include what we have created even if it goes beyond triage?

JG: We do have multiple rulesets. Triage would be a subset.

JG: Currently we have transitional and strict rulesets

JG: Triage would be more functional -- first steps

MS: In manual testing, we triage and recommend training if necessary. Helps to hide the complexity of a full review from someone who won't understand it.

NH: Triage rules would be a subset of 1.0

MJ: Would be beneficial for people who wanted a quick look for glaring errors

JG: In summary: (1) At least one rule for each WCAG A & AA, (2) Support ARIA validation

NH: May not have reached concensus on ARIA validation

JG: It may be required for 4.1.2

NH: What would be too complex?

JG: Scripting related, e.g., device dependent event handlers, would be too complex (could be manual check?)

JG: ARIA validation rules would only apply if developer has included ARIA roles on page

JG: If no ARIA on the page, those rules would be N/A

JG: Think about this over the week. What would be in the triage ruleset? Will try to put together some proposals for review next week.