Motivations for contributing to WAI
- Get something back from contributing time & effort
- Contribute to the body of knowledge
- Build own skills
- Name recognition in greater community
- certain level of formality needed; yet also desire for less formal community
- calls for actions not clear, e.g., in overview pages
Why do people develop material that we already have at WAI?
- people don't know resources are there
- if I think of something, do I even go check the WAI website to see if it's there?
- not developed here - just want to do own version
- overall - too complex (e.g., can't get quick answer)
WAI needs your input - jump in! There are two ways to engage listed below. The first is to provide comment on one or all of the materials currently out for review. The second is specifically for graphic artists or others with interest in Infographics or the use of visualization in general.
Draft materials open for comments
Public input is requested for several WAI projects. WAI encourages you to consider reviewing and/or contributing to the WAI projects listed below, among others. [@@ comments for each go to different places]
You may start a page for discussion on this wiki, submit to the mailing list on the WAI-Engage portal, or - if you are subscribed - send email to the WAI Interest Group at email@example.com
- UAAG 2.0 Comments due by Friday, June 21, 2013
- Easy Checks - A First Review of Web Accessibility General comments are needed and feedback from those who use the Easy Checks. This would be a great one for starting a wiki page and sharing experiences.
- WAI-ARIA Editor's Draft No formal call for review has gone out, but WAI-Engage members and the general public are encouraged to comment on this work-in-progress
- Last Call has been issued for HTML5 Image Description Extension (longdesc). The HTML Accessibility Task Force asks in particular:
- Do the use cases adequately represent end user requirements?
- Are the requirement levels (must, should) for user agents appropriately defined?
- Are the requirements for implementation sufficiently clear and robust?
- Were issues raised against the specification satisfactorily resolved?
Use of illustration in Easy Checks and other WAI materials
Members of WAI Education and Outreach Working Group (EOWG) are working on strategy for the inclusion of illustration within instructional materials. They are seeking input for these questions and invite collaborative engagement. To contribute to the development of a strategic approach to the provision of illustrations, submit to the mailing list on the WAI-Engage portal, or - if you are subscribed - send email to the WAI Interest Group at firstname.lastname@example.org
- Do we want to use captions? Always? Sometimes? If sometimes, then what distinguishes when they are needed?
- If we DO use captions, then how? E.g. do we give a 10 pixel padding with a border that encloses both image and captions?
- Do we have images embedded in the text flow or do we separate them out (e.g. float to right)?
- In some images do we want to use embedded explanatory text and arrows? This may be necessary if we aren't using captions. And even if we do use captions, for some concepts it may illustrate the point more clearly.
- What is the maximum width for an image?
- If width is narrow (e.g. 350 pixels), some images will need to be shrunk to a size where detail may be lost. Is that okay? Or do we want to offer a link to a larger version of the image in such cases?
- Should we number the illustrations? Thus in the text we could say, "See Figure 3" multiple times if Figure 3 is relevant multiple times.
- Do we want to incorporate all illustrations into the expand sections button? Or perhaps have a separate "See illustrations" button? (I dislike both of these ideas, by the way.)
- Currently there are 3 types of images:
1. Illustrate the concept (e.g., page titles, contrast, zoom).
2. Illustrate the toolbar things to click.
3. Illustrate the results from the tool, e.g., alt text next to images.
Currently the concept images (1) are always shown, and the toolbar images (2 & 3) are shown only when that specific checks step is expanded. Is this a good strategy? Should it be used in other contexts?
- Do we want to limit illustrations to one per concept? If the concept is tricky to illustrate (e.g. how to see titles) do we want to offer the option of clicking through to more illustrations?
- Do we want to standardize the format to the image? JPG? SVG? PNG?