W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-silver@w3.org > March 2019

Re: WCAG 2.2 acceptance criteria

From: David Fazio <dfazio@helixopp.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2019 02:55:37 +0000
To: John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com>
CC: "Delisi, Jennie (MNIT)" <jennie.delisi@state.mn.us>, Chuck Adams <charles.adams@oracle.com>, Glenda Sims <glenda.sims@deque.com>, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>, lisa.seeman <lisa.seeman@zoho.com>, COGA TF <public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org>, Silver TF <public-silver@w3.org>, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
Message-ID: <38D5A2B6-24B8-4294-A36B-666B9D8C23ED@helixopp.com>
I agree

This message was Sent from my iPhone. Please excuse any typographic errors.

On Mar 7, 2019, at 5:23 PM, John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com<mailto:john.foliot@deque.com>> wrote:

Hi Jennie,

No worries. Having spent a lot of time earlier-on in the COGA TF, and being heavily involved in the WCAG 2.1 effort, I am aware of the proposed SC that didn't make the first cut, and why. At one point in that process, there was some animosity and accusations tossed about that proved to be counter-productive to the larger effort, and so I was worried that we'd started down that path again.

The issue for me isn't that future SC will require manual testing - we've got plenty of those already - but as noted, as we start to be more specific and detailed in what we ask, there needs to be a mechanism that mainstream content creators can readily rely on, solutions that are robust, that scale for large organizations, and are relatively easy to implement, with a means to accurately test for compliance (and again, at scale). This is doubly important if we want a new SC to be at level A or AA. Sadly, to my mind, trying to standardize on some un-achievable ideal usually results in frustration and disappointment: the sad reality is that we'll never standardize requirements that meet *all* user needs, so the best we can do is try and widen the circle to include more and more users.

For example: Plain Language.

We all know that plain language is important for comprehension, more so for those users with reading and comprehension disorders or impairments. Additionally, there are many resources out there, and subject matter expertise specific to that topic, that can help us define what we mean by Plain Language (and we've got some of that expertise in the Silver WG already), but how do you *test* for that requirement? Can "plain language" be measured? How do you know when you have succeeded and when you have failed? Why did you fail, and how do you remediate that failure? What is the relationship between the content and the intended audience? A web site dedicated to macrobiology (https://quizlet.com/subject/macrobiology/) will at some level not be in "plain language" due to the subject matter, yet universities in the US must be WCAG 2.0 (Section 508) compliant, so now what? What are the requirements when you layer in internationalization issues? (I'd be curious to hear form our colleague Makoto what plain language means in the context of Japanese content...)

I know from prior discussions inside the Silver TF that we will on occasion spend considerable time word-smithing particular sentences and information blocks, and where we end up with a consensus after multiple rounds of "fine-tuning" in real-time, because one of the goals for Silver is that the requirements be written in "Plain Language". That works when there are half-dozen SMEs on a conference call, but how do you scale that up? How do Fortune 500 companies, with literally hundreds (if not thousands) of content contributors involved in all facets of their web presence, consistently meet that goal? And how do internal as well as third-party entities test that with enough consistency that evaluation results will be (relatively) equal?

WCAG has tried in the past to address this need (SC 3.1.5 Reading Level - AAA), but even then, we're told that reading level is not directly connected to Plain Language, and even the existing AAA SC we have is insufficient. I can accept that explanation, but what then is the solution?

I don't have the answer, but I have some ideas. Glenda's proposal hit the meat of those ideas: that we define a methodology for evaluation that can be applied at scale. Even that won't be 'perfect', but I believe it would get us closer to the real goal (even if it ultimately fails in achieve the goal 100%).

Hopefully you will be in attendance during the upcoming F2F meetings at CSUN, and I'd love to sit and discuss this further. I believe I want the same goals as you do, but how we get there will require a lot of thought, discussion and a fair bit of give-and-take along the way.

JF

On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 6:25 PM Delisi, Jennie (MNIT) <jennie.delisi@state.mn.us<mailto:jennie.delisi@state.mn.us>> wrote:

John,

First, my apologies if my choice of phrasing sounded antagonistic. That was not the intent. The conversation the COGA members had that day did not include a feeling that people were specifically trying to exclude the needs of the group, or that they were trying to pit one group against the other.  My poor choice of words did not properly communicate the issue, and I am sorry. The group had identified several possible future success criteria best addressed through manual testing, and testing that may take a bit of time depending on the content. There had been discussion about other success criteria already in place, but in no way were they upset that those had been included. I will choose my words more carefully in the future.


Thank you for your comments about the "time element" and specific testing methodologies for manually testing. I'm hoping more of the COGA members will have time to read these comments in the next day or two, and be able to respond as well.


Jennie

Jennie Delisi
Accessibility Analyst | Office of Accessibility
Minnesota IT Services | Partners in Performance | mn.gov/mnit<http://mn.gov/mnit>
658 Cedar Street | Saint Paul, MN 55155
jennie.delisi@state.mn.us<mailto:jennie.delisi@state.mn.us> | O: 651-201-1135
________________________________
From: John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com<mailto:john.foliot@deque.com>>
Sent: Thursday, March 7, 2019 4:08:35 PM
To: Chuck Adams
Cc: Glenda Sims; Delisi, Jennie (MNIT); Alastair Campbell; lisa.seeman; COGA TF; Silver TF; Andrew Kirkpatrick
Subject: Re: WCAG 2.2 acceptance criteria

So... I do not want to be taken out of context here, but a few comments:


One example we discussed was the current testing required to ensure that the appropriate alt text is assigned for each image used on a page. 1-2 images on a page, not a big deal to test.


This is actually more nuanced, because the Success Criteria does not call for "appropriate", it demands "equivalent purpose" which may not always be the same. <ing src="" alt="sunset"> would pass the SC as written, even though most of us instinctively know that the alt text there is "weak" (and further, some might argue, warranting a longer textual description). But it meets the legal requirement. Facebook's AI will often provide an alt text "may include two people in front of a car" [sic], which again isn't great alt text, but it *does* meet the minimum bar. (And while I never advocate for just the minimum bar, I am pragmatic enough to realize that sometimes that's the best you're gonna get.)


But, on a catalogue page, it could be significant.


Maybe, maybe not. I could also envision a code block for that catalog page that looked something like this: <img src="" alt="Photo: %item_name%"> <h3>%item_name%</h3>, where the value of %item_name% would, in both instances, be populated from a data-base. Again, I'm not *advocating* for that, I'm suggesting it is a reasonable solution in some scenarios, and there the test could be as simple as looking at the source code external to the data-base (or manually checking 3 images to ensure the pattern is consistent, and then moving on)


The question came down to the concept that there may be manual testing that (at this time) may be the only way to truly ensure a barrier is not met by individuals with cognitive disabilities.


Sure, but as the requirements become more sophisticated, a specific testing methodology must also be articulated and put into place: we can't just toss requirements over the wall and hope everyone will figure it out on their own. The Silver TF have discussed this at some length already (and AFAIK not yet come up with a definitive "solution").

From a matter of equality standpoint, why would the testing to address the needs for one group be ok if it takes a lot of time, because they got in on the creation of success criteria at the beginning of the process; but for another group who’s needs were addressed more thoroughly later in the development of success criteria, manual testing that may sometimes require some time cannot be considered?

Respectfully, I find that something of an antagonistic statement: this is not singling out one group over another, it's about ensuring that what we demand of content creators can be accurately and consistently verified for compliance requirements. I would strongly caution that this discussion not dive into one that pits one user group against the other: we're all here for the same reasons. [Flagging chairs]


Meanwhile, Glenda wrote:

To something like this:

  *   Be feasibly testable in a "reasonable amount of time" through automated or manual processes prior to Candidate Recommendation stage.  Examples include:
     *   Automated - an automated testing tool exists that quickly and accurately determines if the criteria is met or not.
     *   Assisted - a software tool exists that makes it more efficient for a tester to accurately determines if the criteria is met or not.
     *   Manual - a manual process exists that makes it possible for a tester to accurately determines if the criteria is met or not.

note:  "reasonable amount of time" can be determined by a call for consensus.

I'd actually leave the time element on the cutting-room floor: a) personally I don't think we'd ever find that magic number, and b) I vaguely recall a SC that speaks about "Timing Adjustable" <grin>, which to paraphrase, effectively states that we shouldn't be locking people into specific time-frames, that they can "adjust" that timing to meet their individual needs. I would think that this would be of particular interest to the Coga TF, as I suspect this is a real issue for many of those in that user-group.

I think what is far more important (I'd go as far as "Critical") is that we produce, in conjunction with any SC that requires manual testing, a specific testing methodology - a 'script' as it were - on how to consistently test a component on the page, with clear and unambiguous 'markers' on what is sufficient versus what is not. It's the methodology piece that is critical, not the time it takes to do it (for example, the *only* way to accurately determine if Audio Description is "correct" today is to watch the entire video with Audio Description turned on - whether that video is 3 minutes or 30 minutes or 300 minutes...)

Minus the time reference however, +1 to Glenda's suggestion.

JF


On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 3:31 PM Chuck Adams <charles.adams@oracle.com<mailto:charles.adams@oracle.com>> wrote:

+1 Chuck



From: Glenda Sims <glenda.sims@deque.com<mailto:glenda.sims@deque.com>>
Sent: Thursday, March 7, 2019 2:03 PM
To: Delisi, Jennie (MNIT) <jennie.delisi@state.mn.us<mailto:jennie.delisi@state.mn.us>>
Cc: John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com<mailto:john.foliot@deque.com>>; Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com<mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com>>; lisa.seeman@zoho.com<mailto:lisa.seeman@zoho.com>; COGA TF <public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org<mailto:public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org>>; Silver TF <public-silver@w3.org<mailto:public-silver@w3.org>>
Subject: Re: WCAG 2.2 acceptance criteria



Goodwitch magically appears after being MIA for weeks to say:



I suggest we clarify this bullet a bit more.  I think the example is a useful example, but it isn't the only way to be "feasibly testable".  And the way the sentence is written, it is hard to parse/process.  So what if we changed from this:

  *   Be feasibly testable through automated or manual processes, i.e. take a few minutes per page with tools available prior to Candidate Recommendation stage.

To something like this:

  *   Be feasibly testable in a "reasonable amount of time" through automated or manual processes prior to Candidate Recommendation stage.  Examples include:

     *   Automated - an automated testing tool exists that quickly and accurately determines if the criteria is met or not.
     *   Assisted - a software tool exists that makes it more efficient for a tester to accurately determines if the criteria is met or not.
     *   Manual - a manual process exists that makes it possible for a tester to accurately determines if the criteria is met or not.

note:  "reasonable amount of time" can be determined by a call for consensus.



I'd suggest that if we pursue this "reasonable amount of time" angle...that it be based on "reasonable amount of time" to test an ELEMENT (not a page).  I think the variance in amount of time to test a page (when pages can endlessly scroll) will make it impossible to come up with a "reasonable amount of time" per page.



I'm not in favor of leaving the requirement as it is currently drafted at https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_2.2_Success_criterion_acceptance_requirements<https://gcc01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__www.w3.org_WAI_GL_wiki_WCAG-5F2.2-5FSuccess-5Fcriterion-5Facceptance-5Frequirements%26d%3DDwMFaQ%26c%3DRoP1YumCXCgaWHvlZYR8PZh8Bv7qIrMUB65eapI_JnE%26r%3Db-9TIC95K-nLEKIDibNXAN_FKV-iXhLlAW2Zc3ebV_c%26m%3D_p7Yxrl6Zp2sk72o5dwgmlwhjQ4eLo4fUWPVLEoAbk0%26s%3D5ef2UFktuiL-eTBWN_T3f0qUokZodp6f36XFMELbhbU%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7Cjennie.delisi%40state.mn.us%7Ceb313779e8eb41e52f7608d6a34985ba%7Ceb14b04624c445198f26b89c2159828c%7C0%7C0%7C636875933518961524&sdata=8PlmTNDzEb55rcFrHJGjD%2FXZip3sOByLDSXl1EfnxLo%3D&reserved=0>



G



glenda sims<mailto:glenda.sims@deque.com>, cpacc<https://gcc01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttp-3A__www.accessibilityassociation.org_certification%26d%3DDwMFaQ%26c%3DRoP1YumCXCgaWHvlZYR8PZh8Bv7qIrMUB65eapI_JnE%26r%3Db-9TIC95K-nLEKIDibNXAN_FKV-iXhLlAW2Zc3ebV_c%26m%3D_p7Yxrl6Zp2sk72o5dwgmlwhjQ4eLo4fUWPVLEoAbk0%26s%3D9o5lmzpfCNSt1f4YcOrQ9SYxuekoXeU2JQrstNBegME%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7Cjennie.delisi%40state.mn.us%7Ceb313779e8eb41e52f7608d6a34985ba%7Ceb14b04624c445198f26b89c2159828c%7C0%7C0%7C636875933518961524&sdata=vDqk6JIcq9%2FPTyU9Qfe5DVmrjtfc6fgmvgbHEV7TpAM%3D&reserved=0>   | team a11y lead | 512.963.3773



        deque systems<https://gcc01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttp-3A__www.deque.com%26d%3DDwMFaQ%26c%3DRoP1YumCXCgaWHvlZYR8PZh8Bv7qIrMUB65eapI_JnE%26r%3Db-9TIC95K-nLEKIDibNXAN_FKV-iXhLlAW2Zc3ebV_c%26m%3D_p7Yxrl6Zp2sk72o5dwgmlwhjQ4eLo4fUWPVLEoAbk0%26s%3DAOB6VeDCie4SvizdBULO7MzT1sYorNafNsRlwX7_YEo%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7Cjennie.delisi%40state.mn.us%7Ceb313779e8eb41e52f7608d6a34985ba%7Ceb14b04624c445198f26b89c2159828c%7C0%7C0%7C636875933518971533&sdata=lJGN6NIWJ4PkD0Le1o1Mdnj7ikhAZofBE8P9cxfjXT4%3D&reserved=0>  accessibility for good





On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 1:31 PM Delisi, Jennie (MNIT) <jennie.delisi@state.mn.us<mailto:jennie.delisi@state.mn.us>> wrote:

Hello,

Part of the concerns the COGA group discussed was that manual tests are often required, and the variety of time required to test different pages can vary greatly, depending on the content of that page.



One example we discussed was the current testing required to ensure that the appropriate alt text is assigned for each image used on a page. 1-2 images on a page, not a big deal to test. But, on a catalogue page, it could be significant.

The question came down to the concept that there may be manual testing that (at this time) may be the only way to truly ensure a barrier is not met by individuals with cognitive disabilities.



I, too, work in an environment where a lot of testing occurs every day. And, we have to hold contractors, vendors, and employees to standards that can be measured. We need to be able to provide detailed and consistent feedback when a failure of a success criteria has been noted. The time taken to complete testing is definitely important. But, consideration of barriers is the whole goal, right?



From a matter of equality standpoint, why would the testing to address the needs for one group be ok if it takes a lot of time, because they got in on the creation of success criteria at the beginning of the process; but for another group who’s needs were addressed more thoroughly later in the development of success criteria, manual testing that may sometimes require some time cannot be considered?



I would like to propose that the language about the time it takes to complete a test have an exception process, or propose a rewording of the time component, so that the barriers experienced by this group of individuals with disabilities receives fair consideration in this process.



Jennie



Jennie Delisi, MA, CPWA

Accessibility Analyst | Office of Accessibility

Minnesota IT Services | Partners in Performance

658 Cedar Street

St. Paul, MN 55155

O: 651-201-1135

Information Technology for Minnesota Government | mn.gov/mnit<https://gcc01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttp-3A__mn.gov_mnit%26d%3DDwMFaQ%26c%3DRoP1YumCXCgaWHvlZYR8PZh8Bv7qIrMUB65eapI_JnE%26r%3Db-9TIC95K-nLEKIDibNXAN_FKV-iXhLlAW2Zc3ebV_c%26m%3D_p7Yxrl6Zp2sk72o5dwgmlwhjQ4eLo4fUWPVLEoAbk0%26s%3D_LFhqvlrxsO3lXWJLlfp_27jFLhINYqTNbloiIO7Fuk%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7Cjennie.delisi%40state.mn.us%7Ceb313779e8eb41e52f7608d6a34985ba%7Ceb14b04624c445198f26b89c2159828c%7C0%7C0%7C636875933518981538&sdata=c61hAotUeheW845gPRfveq%2BBgQKjKs3Fv9WDJmXoS7Y%3D&reserved=0>

[Minnesota IT Services Logo]

<image002.png><https://gcc01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__www.facebook.com_MN.ITServices%26d%3DDwMFaQ%26c%3DRoP1YumCXCgaWHvlZYR8PZh8Bv7qIrMUB65eapI_JnE%26r%3Db-9TIC95K-nLEKIDibNXAN_FKV-iXhLlAW2Zc3ebV_c%26m%3D_p7Yxrl6Zp2sk72o5dwgmlwhjQ4eLo4fUWPVLEoAbk0%26s%3DYvE-iUe2YSCmKu-16UikG2dQBqGSAzbXuMtLtuLpvt8%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7Cjennie.delisi%40state.mn.us%7Ceb313779e8eb41e52f7608d6a34985ba%7Ceb14b04624c445198f26b89c2159828c%7C0%7C0%7C636875933518981538&sdata=GZF9TSKzySF%2BsWlldpBFQZVjWRt%2FUCamMFQjOwTmj7Y%3D&reserved=0><image003.png><https://gcc01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__www.linkedin.com_company_mn-2Dit-2Dservices%26d%3DDwMFaQ%26c%3DRoP1YumCXCgaWHvlZYR8PZh8Bv7qIrMUB65eapI_JnE%26r%3Db-9TIC95K-nLEKIDibNXAN_FKV-iXhLlAW2Zc3ebV_c%26m%3D_p7Yxrl6Zp2sk72o5dwgmlwhjQ4eLo4fUWPVLEoAbk0%26s%3DRK5dztyDuf9FrOqeASJlnJCg223LbPm8cHpkQHow7co%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7Cjennie.delisi%40state.mn.us%7Ceb313779e8eb41e52f7608d6a34985ba%7Ceb14b04624c445198f26b89c2159828c%7C0%7C0%7C636875933518991547&sdata=YLdbJw5aOUXZ0PrSxtRw9w6s%2FpO30vIdEVmJFCCfj1Y%3D&reserved=0><image004.png><https://gcc01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__twitter.com_mnit-5Fservices%26d%3DDwMFaQ%26c%3DRoP1YumCXCgaWHvlZYR8PZh8Bv7qIrMUB65eapI_JnE%26r%3Db-9TIC95K-nLEKIDibNXAN_FKV-iXhLlAW2Zc3ebV_c%26m%3D_p7Yxrl6Zp2sk72o5dwgmlwhjQ4eLo4fUWPVLEoAbk0%26s%3DrcsHJ6yQ3mOK0YLis1zBI7MepoVIPPbUJP_8TCpirLs%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7Cjennie.delisi%40state.mn.us%7Ceb313779e8eb41e52f7608d6a34985ba%7Ceb14b04624c445198f26b89c2159828c%7C0%7C0%7C636875933518991547&sdata=QOW%2BmVKvlIIfIV0lP0gFmuJa3Ng9x1NLVrOOkdUIVxo%3D&reserved=0>







From: John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com<mailto:john.foliot@deque.com>>
Sent: Thursday, March 7, 2019 11:26 AM
To: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com<mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com>>
Cc: lisa.seeman@zoho.com<mailto:lisa.seeman@zoho.com>; Delisi, Jennie (MNIT) <jennie.delisi@state.mn.us<mailto:jennie.delisi@state.mn.us>>; COGA TF <public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org<mailto:public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org>>; Silver TF <public-silver@w3.org<mailto:public-silver@w3.org>>
Subject: Re: WCAG 2.2 acceptance criteria



Hi All,



To perhaps also put a finer distinction on it... W3C Process mandates two independent implementations of whatever new technology is being proposed - a testing activity we actually did last spring during CSUN for the 2.1 Success Criteria (where, for SC 1.3.6 @ AAA we actually used the implementations that Lisa had pointed us to). Those implementations may or may not also serve as a 'testing tool', but as the Silver discussion continues, a repeatable testing methodology will need to surface for each new requirement, whether that is via a tool (mechanical tests - see: ACT TF), or via a 'cognitive walk-though' or similar methodology (a process still to be fully defined in Silver).



At the end of the day, while it is true that our primary audience is and will always be users with disabilities (of all stripes and forms), a second important consideration is compliance requirements mandated by legislation. To clear that hurdle, we will need to ensure that both implementers and consumers have a baseline measurable & impartial (non-subjective) "test", so that entities can then claim conformance based upon the outcome of said test.



JF



On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 10:52 AM Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com<mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com>> wrote:

Hi Lisa,



> To meet new user needs we may need new tools and reviews may need to acquire new skills and knowledge.



Which is fine, perhaps we can clarify that it means available at the time of publication?



New tools, especially if they “take a day” from a programmer would need to be available at the time of publication, for the reasons I outlined in the last email.





> Also new tools will come as soon as we know a SC will be accepted. in other word at CR. With WCAGs current history it will not come before then.



Can you point to a previous example? I.e. where a tool that didn’t exist was required to meet an SC wasn’t available until after CR?

The closest I can think of is ARIA in WCAG 2.0, but it wasn’t actually required to meet the SCs.



It is very difficult to deal something in CR which then has to be pulled because no one has created a tool, the whole timeline goes back a step. The way the W3C prefers to work is to have working prototypes/code created prior to specs. This has been a hard-learned approach [1].



I suggest that if an SC needs a tool, we work up the SC template and go through the initial process. That could be accepted on the condition that a tool will be available. If it does not become available then the SC will be removed before CR.



It would also help to put those SC(s) first so people have more time to work on the tools, I’ll make a note of that.



Cheers,



-Alastair





1] Accessibility example for what should be a ‘simple’ thing, the naming algorithm.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/future-accname-spec-planning-strategy-functional-using-garaventa/<https://gcc01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__gcc01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Fwww.linkedin.com-252Fpulse-252Ffuture-2Daccname-2Dspec-2Dplanning-2Dstrategy-2Dfunctional-2Dusing-2Dgaraventa-252F-26data-3D02-257C01-257Cjennie.delisi-2540state.mn.us-257C2a94ca2523bb46a0bdd208d6a321fd94-257Ceb14b04624c445198f26b89c2159828c-257C0-257C0-257C636875763714627907-26sdata-3DVCYgFIjR5CMjFxunizRlfRp8QYNbGpWZR8Sb6OmhcQI-253D-26reserved-3D0%26d%3DDwMFaQ%26c%3DRoP1YumCXCgaWHvlZYR8PZh8Bv7qIrMUB65eapI_JnE%26r%3Db-9TIC95K-nLEKIDibNXAN_FKV-iXhLlAW2Zc3ebV_c%26m%3D_p7Yxrl6Zp2sk72o5dwgmlwhjQ4eLo4fUWPVLEoAbk0%26s%3DfQvWalvG5VAStfZ7Pmso1gyaTqOJ_sivl3M1isFCcBU%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7Cjennie.delisi%40state.mn.us%7Ceb313779e8eb41e52f7608d6a34985ba%7Ceb14b04624c445198f26b89c2159828c%7C0%7C0%7C636875933519001548&sdata=qdCq8Qf%2FC76IcV%2FlXsfr0R8C1I3fbkUtdZcwpq4iD30%3D&reserved=0>




--

​John Foliot | Principal Accessibility Strategist | W3C AC Representative
Deque Systems - Accessibility for Good
deque.com<https://gcc01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__gcc01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttp-253A-252F-252Fdeque.com-252F-26data-3D02-257C01-257Cjennie.delisi-2540state.mn.us-257C2a94ca2523bb46a0bdd208d6a321fd94-257Ceb14b04624c445198f26b89c2159828c-257C0-257C0-257C636875763714637908-26sdata-3DGG0O3iMQp-252F8PHf6p8EWzegAcg-252FBpQuuSttIJLwi6EbA-253D-26reserved-3D0%26d%3DDwMFaQ%26c%3DRoP1YumCXCgaWHvlZYR8PZh8Bv7qIrMUB65eapI_JnE%26r%3Db-9TIC95K-nLEKIDibNXAN_FKV-iXhLlAW2Zc3ebV_c%26m%3D_p7Yxrl6Zp2sk72o5dwgmlwhjQ4eLo4fUWPVLEoAbk0%26s%3DHvm23HBHHOyFc84ojLoyEOH_dH9_6VudfqT7rEX1dGM%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7Cjennie.delisi%40state.mn.us%7Ceb313779e8eb41e52f7608d6a34985ba%7Ceb14b04624c445198f26b89c2159828c%7C0%7C0%7C636875933519011562&sdata=aYb06tz28T18LPmPZZCltAsSWbqyiwL%2BKZbXeeZKkgU%3D&reserved=0>




--
​John Foliot | Principal Accessibility Strategist | W3C AC Representative
Deque Systems - Accessibility for Good
deque.com<https://gcc01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdeque.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cjennie.delisi%40state.mn.us%7Ceb313779e8eb41e52f7608d6a34985ba%7Ceb14b04624c445198f26b89c2159828c%7C0%7C0%7C636875933519011562&sdata=vm7joHaJtLwdQX8bz6RQYy2Zh2DVjwKrotasZaJQvPw%3D&reserved=0>



--
​John Foliot | Principal Accessibility Strategist | W3C AC Representative
Deque Systems - Accessibility for Good
deque.com<http://deque.com/>



image001.png
(image/png attachment: image001.png)

image002.png
(image/png attachment: image002.png)

image003.png
(image/png attachment: image003.png)

image004.png
(image/png attachment: image004.png)

image001.png
(image/png attachment: 05-image001.png)

Received on Friday, 8 March 2019 02:56:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2019 02:56:08 UTC