- From: Léonie Watson <lwatson@tetralogical.com>
- Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2023 10:19:10 +0100
- To: Mike Gifford <mike.gifford@civicactions.com>, "WCAG list (w3c-wai-gl@w3.org)" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, "Patrick H. Lauke" <redux@splintered.co.uk>, Jennifer Strickland <jstrickland@mitre.org>
- Message-ID: <a99639d8-aa79-50c9-81e4-cf13ef82a772@tetralogical.com>
The Github website is quite usable with a screen reader in my experience. I know the website had, and may still have, challenges for magnifier users, and possibly others too, but certainly when it comes to using Github issues, I can't think of anything that can't be done using a screen reader. On 28/04/2023 4:33 PM, Mike Gifford wrote: > So I’ve tried to put pressure on GitHub years ago to improve their > accessibility. That effort wasn’t all that successful, but I think > they did make some improvements to the interface. > > I’ve reached out to a couple people I know involved in GitHub’s > accessibility. I do think it is worth other folks putting some > pressure on them too. Ultimately, GitHub is where so much tech > innovation happens. If members of the W3C can’t use GitHub to engage > in a project’s development, then they can’t help make products more > accessible, and clients like governments really shouldn’t be building > off of them either. The W3C is important, but making GitHub more > accessible is probably at least as important. Maybe Microsoft can do > some “3rd party” testing on it. Certainly the members of this group > will have some clout as they represent entities that likely have > enterprise contracts with GitHub. > > However, once the issue queue is more accessible to screen reader > users who use the web interface, I think that voting via the issue > queue could work. > > Yes, people can change their thumbs up/down vote on an issue. However, > I think the API could actually just allow you to take a snapshot of > the votes at a particular time and post them as a snapshot at a > particular moment. So yes, you’d be able to change your vote > afterwards, but there would be a static capture of who voted a that > moment. A more manual method would be to either take a screenshot of > votes or create a custom Greesemonkey script to extract the values for > the votes into a method that could be easily cut/paste into a comment. > And yes, GitHub should make this easier, so we don’t have to hack a > solution. > > Maybe we have to stick to voting by email for now. I suspect that some > folks will resist moving to GitHub even after usability and > accessibility issues are addressed there. Maybe it is possible to have > some folks vote on GitHub & everyone else continue to vote via email, > but have the combined results recorded on GitHub. > > I do think that the use of <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org> could be more strategic > and useful, if we could have focused discussions done within an > accessible GitHub repository. I don’t know. I’m not an expert at this. > It just seems like it isn’t the most effective way to use the > technology to its best advantage. > > Mike > > Ps. I changed the title, as this is often a problem that happens when > threads get forked in mailing lists (and indeed other threaded > communications). > > > Mike Gifford, Senior Strategist, CivicActions > Drupal Core Accessibility Maintainer > https://civicactions.com | https://accessibility.civicactions.com > http://twitter.com/mgifford | http://linkedin.com/in/mgifford > > On April 27, 2023 at 12:36:45 PM, Jennifer Strickland > (jstrickland@mitre.org) wrote: > >> When I joined AGWG I was surprised by the email voting. It seemed so >> antiquated compared to the developer environments I was used to. >> >> After collaborating with some of our colleagues I grew to appreciate >> how Github isn’t accessible (in all forms of that word) for many. >> >> The email voting gets the job done and allows the diverse >> perspectives to participate. >> >> Setting a filter or a label gave my inbox some relief. >> >> *From: *Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk> >> *Date: *Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 11:32 AM >> *To: *WCAG list (w3c-wai-gl@w3.org) <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org> >> *Subject: *[EXT] Re[2]: Understanding dismay >> >> Worth noting here that the voting / CFC is aimed only at WG members on >> the GL list. Putting it on GitHub would likely lead to "randoms" voting >> as well, which then would require deduping/verifying votes? >> >> P >> -- >> Patrick H. Lauke >> >> https://www.splintered.co.uk/ / https://github.com/patrickhlauke / >> https://codepen.io/patrickhlauke >> https://flickr.com/photos/redux/ / https://www.deviantart.com/redux >> https://mastodon.social/@patrick_h_lauke >> >> >> ------ Original Message ------ >> From "Mike Gifford" <mike.gifford@civicactions.com> >> To "WCAG list (w3c-wai-gl@w3.org)" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>; "Andrew >> Kirkpatrick" <akirkpat@adobe.com> >> Date 27/04/2023 16:00:03 >> Subject Re: Understanding dismay >> >> >Thanks for asking Andrew, >> > >> >I’m sure this has been brought up before, but I’m not part of any other >> >group that does this. I’m part of lots of other groups. >> > >> >Normally in tech projects people go to GitHub & give a Thumbs-Up if a >> >vote is needed. That becomes the default voting mechanism for many >> >projects. >> > >> >I could see the W3C setting up a simple link that allows logged in >> >users to record a yes/no on a particular decision. >> > >> >I know that there are folks that don’t like GitHub. Like any tool, it >> >isn’t perfect. I know setting up online voting systems can be expensive >> >and can carry their own set of challenges. >> > >> >But there is a lot of email discussions that take place on this list. >> >It clutters up a lot of folks inboxes. Adds to our cognitive load. >> >Sure, it is a lowest-common-denominator solution that works. However, >> >how many people does it drive away from the W3C? How many folks just >> >filter the emails, and become disengaged from the conversation. >> > >> >I don’t know the answers to this. Maybe a hybrid option could work. >> >Pushing most conversations and discussions to GitHub, where many of us >> >would find it more useful, but allowing some folks to have some >> >conversations in the mailing list because that is their preference. It >> >is all a bit awkward. >> > >> >I figured that because I’m new I should ask this before I too become >> >accustomed to a pattern (that seems broken). >> > >> >Mike >> > >> > >> >Mike Gifford, Senior Strategist, CivicActions >> >Drupal Core Accessibility Maintainer >> >https://civicactions.com <https://civicactions.com/> | >> >https://accessibility.civicactions.com >> >http://twitter.com/mgifford | http://linkedin.com/in/mgifford >> > >> >On April 27, 2023 at 9:16:14 AM, Andrew Kirkpatrick >> >(akirkpat@adobe.com) wrote: >> > >> >>Mike, >> >> >> >>Can you explain why this process is dismaying? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>FYI, we changed to using the CFC process which includes an extended >> >>period of time for respondents around the world to have time to >> >>respond to decisions without attending a call that may be at 2am for >> >>them. All of the CFC responses are recorded in the W3C’s system for a >> >>permanent record. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>Thanks, >> >> >> >>AWK >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>Andrew Kirkpatrick >> >> >> >>Director, Accessibility >> >> >> >>Adobe >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>akirkpat@adobe.com >> >> >> >>http://twitter.com/awkawk >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>From: Mike Gifford <mike.gifford@civicactions.com> >> >>Date: Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 7:43 AM >> >>To: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org> >> >>Subject: Re: CFC Move WCAG 2.2 to Candidate Recommendation >> >>Resent-From: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org> >> >>Resent-Date: Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 7:42 AM >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>EXTERNAL: Use caution when clicking on links or opening attachments. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>+1 Thanks. >> >> >> >>Also, a bit dismayed that we're voting via email. >> >> >> >>Mike >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>On Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 7:17 AM Bradley Montgomery, Rachael L >> >><rmontgomery@loc.gov> wrote: >> >> >> >>>+1 >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>>From: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com> >> >>>Date: Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 7:14 PM >> >>>To: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org> >> >>>Subject: CFC Move WCAG 2.2 to Candidate Recommendation >> >>>Resent-From: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org> >> >>>Resent-Date: Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 7:12 PM >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>>CAUTION: This email message has been received from an external >> >>>source. Please use caution when opening attachments, or clicking on >> >>>links. >> >>> >> >>>Hi everyone, >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>>Call For Consensus — ends Tuesday 2nd April at 5pm Boston time. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>>The Working Group has agreed (in meetings) to re-start the Candidate >> >>>Recommendation stage for WCAG 2.2. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>>This CFC is to approve that transition into CR, including the changes >> >>>made since the last one. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>>There are updates to Target Size and Focus Appearance, which can be >> >>>viewed here: >> >>> >> >>>https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/3123/files >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>>These two SCs will be marked ‘at risk’, with a fallback to the >> >>>previous versions. If that fall back is also not agreed, then it >> >>>would result in removal. (For Focus Appearance, the fallback would be >> >>>the previous text at AAA level.) >> >>>The fallbacks for ‘at risk’ are subject to approval from W3C >> >>>management, we would return to the group if it is not approved. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>>Minor changes since the last CR: >> >>> >> >>>A non-normative change to Focus Not Obscured (adjusting the notes) >> >>>was agreed: https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/3083/files Accessibility >> >>>Authentication had “(minimum)” added to the name: >> >>>https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/3132/files >> >>> >> >>> >> >>>If you have concerns about this proposed consensus position that have >> >>>not been discussed already and feel that those concerns result in you >> >>>“not being able to live with” this decision, please let the group >> >>>know before the CfC deadline. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>>Kind regards, >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>>-Alastair >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>>-- >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>>@alastc / www.nomensa.com <http://www.nomensa.com> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>-- >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>Mike Gifford, Senior Strategist, CivicActions >> >> >> >>Drupal Core Accessibility Maintainer >> >> >> >>https://civicactions.com <https://civicactions.com/> | >> >>https://accessibility.civicactions.com >> >><https://accessibility.civicactions.com/> >> >> >> >>http://twitter.com/mgifford | http://linkedin.com/in/mgifford >> >> >> -- Léonie Watson (she/her) Director https://tetralogical.com
Received on Saturday, 29 April 2023 09:19:21 UTC