- From: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
- Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2023 16:13:43 +0000
- To: "WCAG list (w3c-wai-gl@w3.org)" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, AGWG Chairs <group-ag-chairs@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <PR3PR09MB53479B7E37E50AB48EF57DB6B96B9@PR3PR09MB5347.eurprd09.prod.outlook.com>
Hi everyone, For context, we’ve done a couple of rounds of group-feedback on our process and the tools since we started using github (around 2017 I think?). The accessibility of github has improved since we started using it, however, I think there are still issues. Either for accessibility or (also importantly) the UX for people not familiar with it, which edges into cognitive accessibility. For us to swap the CFC mechanism, we’d need it to: * Be at least as accessible as the current (email); * Have voting restricted to members of the AG group; * Have a snapshot method so we can show the result at the time. That isn’t to say the email method is good, but it’s the best / least-bad method so far. Note that all CFC emails start with “CFC - “, so it should be straightforward to create a sub-folder for them. I filter group emails and also have a sub-folder within that for CFC emails. If someone can suggest another voting method to achieve the same results, either in or out of github, we’d love to hear it. You can use the group-ag-chairs@w3.org<mailto:group-ag-chairs@w3.org> address if you’d rather not send a suggestion to the whole group. Kind regards, -Alastair From: Reid, Wendy As much as I love working in GitHub, I definitely do not think it’s an appropriate venue for voting for the reasons already mentioned. All of the W3C repos are (rightfully) public, meaning that votes can be provided by non-members, and while we may be able to query the API to get snapshots and lists, that’s adding additional work that is easily avoided by keeping things to the mailing list. Yes, the flurry of emails I get in my inbox during voting isn’t my favourite, but I use filters and folders and I actually enjoy having an idea of how the vote is going, as well as seeing comments. Are there other potential ways we could look at improving this process, probably! I don’t think GH is one of them. -Wendy From: Mike Gifford 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<mailto: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://civicactions.com/> | https://accessibility.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<mailto: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<mailto:redux@splintered.co.uk>> Date: Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 11:32 AM To: WCAG list (w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>) <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto: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<mailto:mike.gifford@civicactions.com>> To "WCAG list (w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>)" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>; "Andrew Kirkpatrick" <akirkpat@adobe.com<mailto: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://civicactions.com/> | >https://accessibility.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<mailto: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<mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com> >> >>http://twitter.com/awkawk >> >> >> >> >> >>From: Mike Gifford <mike.gifford@civicactions.com<mailto:mike.gifford@civicactions.com>> >>Date: Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 7:43 AM >>To: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>> >>Subject: Re: CFC Move WCAG 2.2 to Candidate Recommendation >>Resent-From: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto: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<mailto:rmontgomery@loc.gov>> wrote: >> >>>+1 >>> >>> >>> >>>From: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com<mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com>> >>>Date: Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 7:14 PM >>>To: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>> >>>Subject: CFC Move WCAG 2.2 to Candidate Recommendation >>>Resent-From: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto: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://civicactions.com/> | >>https://accessibility.civicactions.com<https://accessibility.civicactions.com/> >><https://accessibility.civicactions.com/> >> >>http://twitter.com/mgifford | http://linkedin.com/in/mgifford >>
Received on Friday, 28 April 2023 16:14:35 UTC