Re: [EXT] Re: Are there more effective ways to use this mailing list to engage members & make decisions

I worry about discussing someone else’s experience on this forum so I’m avoiding personally identifying information or private health information.

This was when I first started doing active work on content which would have been in 2021. For an example, we reviewed issues and my colleague who does not use the command line tried to read issues but it conveyed issue pages content as a table and they were confused. So was I because it doesn’t look like a table and isn’t a table. That’s one instance. The Edit file experience was also confusing for them. When I heard it through a screen reader I was dismayed. I’ve regularly proposed that we coordinate Github training for a variety of users to help with workarounds.

Many of our members are not web developers.

There are people with disabilities and intersectional identity characteristics where barriers compound. Back when this happened, I reached out to others in AGWG to see if we could find a way to use Github and learned Léonie and Janina use the command line. I also learned more about other consequences some people with disabilities experience which introduce more barriers. We ended up using the Google docs and a waterfall workflow. This was a powerful experience that further cemented my commitment to inclusion and equity.

While the email approach may seem antiquated to many, it sought to be equitable. I suggest we speak to a diverse range of our AGWG members to see if it works for them and what barriers they encounter to participation.




From: Léonie Watson <lwatson@tetralogical.com>
Date: Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 11:17 AM
To: Jennifer Strickland <jstrickland@mitre.org>, WCAG list (w3c-wai-gl@w3.org) <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Cc: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>, Mike Gifford <mike.gifford@civicactions.com>
Subject: Re: [EXT] Re: Are there more effective ways to use this mailing list to engage members & make decisions

If you can describe what they found difficult in more detail, I'd be happy to help if I can.



For the most part the semantic structure of the Github website is reasonable. The heading structure is robust, it uses landmarks (often with labels to help further identify them), forms are labelled, interactive elements have the expected semantics and keyboard support, link texts are unique and understandable in their own right, and graphics have descriptions.



The Github website is complex because it's a complex tool, and so perhaps if someone is not familiar with how it works, it may not be immediately obvious what everything is or does.



With issues, which is the main thing this WG uses Github for I think, it's worth mentioning that you can be notified of issues and comments by email, and you can use email to post your own comments. There is information on how to enable email notifications here:

https://docs.github.com/en/account-and-profile/managing-subscriptions-and-notifications-on-github/setting-up-notifications/configuring-notifications




HTH






On 30/04/2023 2:53 PM, Jennifer Strickland wrote:
My colleague in sub-group work couldn’t use the Github website with a screen reader. They aren’t familiar with the command line. The semantic structure of the Github website conveyed meaning irrelevant to the content and confused my colleague.


From: Léonie Watson <lwatson@tetralogical.com><mailto:lwatson@tetralogical.com>
Date: Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 5:19 AM
To: Mike Gifford <mike.gifford@civicactions.com><mailto:mike.gifford@civicactions.com>, WCAG list (w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>) <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org><mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk><mailto:redux@splintered.co.uk>, Jennifer Strickland <jstrickland@mitre.org><mailto:jstrickland@mitre.org>
Subject: [EXT] Re: Are there more effective ways to use this mailing list to engage members & make decisions

The Github website is quite usable with a screen reader in my experience. I know the website had, and may still have, challenges for magnifier users, and possibly others too, but certainly when it comes to using Github issues, I can't think of anything that can't be done using a screen reader.







On 28/04/2023 4:33 PM, Mike Gifford wrote:
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

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://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://accessibility.civicactions.com

>><https://accessibility.civicactions.com/>
>>
>>http://twitter.com/mgifford |  http://linkedin.com/in/mgifford

>>

--

Léonie Watson (she/her)

Director

https://tetralogical.com


--

Léonie Watson (she/her)

Director

https://tetralogical.com