RE: Authoring tools and WAI guidelines (was RE: Straw man list for WCAG.NEXT, another proposal...)



>-----Original Message-----
>From: Patrick H. Lauke [mailto:redux@splintered.co.uk]
>Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 12:53 PM

>Particularly for ARIA patterns that are more complex, it would be good to get
>more authoritative code examples...and also ensure that those examples
>show reduced test cases (a lot of examples floating around for ARIA seem to
>often combine a few patterns in an attempt to be more "real-world", but by
>doing so muddy the waters of what exactly is required/suggested purely for
>each one of its widgets/components). I gather that this is being addressed
>now in ARIA 1.1 though.

Examples are indeed being worked on in the Authoring Practices guide.

I haven't read any claims of conformance by libraries/frameworks to accessibility specifications, and I'm speculatively wondering whether there should be a standard for them. I suppose they could conform to WCAG 2.0 and WAI-ARIA 1.0 (1.1 when finalized). Conforming to ARIA alone isn't sufficient; they could conform by merely implementing it in a few places even if most of the widgets didn't implement it.

Has anyone performed a WCAG 2.0 evaluation of a library/framework? Are there additional success criteria needed here?


________________________________

This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual for whom it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute, or take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and delete it from your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited.


Thank you for your compliance.

________________________________

Received on Monday, 11 April 2016 17:15:26 UTC