- From: Matt King <a11ythinker@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2019 07:32:23 -0700
- To: 'Zoë Bijl' <w3c@moiety.me>, <public-aria-practices@w3.org>
As we discussed at TPAC, we'll add more structure to our PR review process so nothing will be merged until all required reviews are complete. This might slow things down when we don't have the reviewers we need, but the community rightly expects our deliverables to be high quality along many dimensions, but most importantly accessibility with the very important exception of no work arounds to missing or incorrect AT support. However, we will address the AT support issue with the integration of AT support tables from theARIA-AT project next year. Then, authors will know if they need to provide any work arounds. Best, Matt -----Original Message----- From: Zoë Bijl <w3c@moiety.me> Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2019 4:32 AM To: public-aria-practices@w3.org Subject: Please test the accessibility of code examples you submit Dear all, The quality of our code examples has come under fire and was a hot topic during TPAC 2019. We’re working on additional guidance to help remedy. Most of that guidance is on how to write code that’s easier to read for people from all skill levels. Another very important part of quality is accessibility. And frankly, I’m appalled at the number of contrast ratio fails and high contrast errors we have. JAWS-test has filed a bunch of them in this issue: https://github.com/w3c/aria-practices/issues/1132. I’ll work to fix the issues listed there. But I think the takeaway here should be that we need to pay closer attention to accessibility issues. Adding code examples with contrast ratio issues is unacceptable. —Zoë Bijl
Received on Tuesday, 24 September 2019 14:32:47 UTC