- From: Léonie Watson <lwatson@tetralogical.com>
- Date: Wed, 3 May 2023 16:05:38 +0100
- 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>
- Message-ID: <ff0974d2-8d3d-c5ee-c348-d3f5e68bedc1@tetralogical.com>
Thanks Jennifer. Completely understandable that you don't want to share anyone's personal information. In case it helps, issues are now structured using headings, with an h1 for the issue title, an h2 for the section containing all the comments, and an h3 for each comment that's been posted. If you're looking at the Issues page of the repo, then the h1 is "Issues" and the h2 is "Issues list", followed by all the issues. I find it best to use the shortcut for moving between checkboxes or the links dialogue as a way of quickly navigating through the issues on this page. Editing files is a it more tricky. I use Github to create a copy of the repo and the files inside it to my local machine. That way I can edit files using my preferred text editor. I recognise that involves new activities, but I'd be happy to help someone do it if it'd be helpful. Generally speaking, this post by Birkir Gunnerson might be of help. It's a little old now but I think it's still in good shape. https://www.deque.com/blog/birkirs-bats-flight-accessibility-hacks-blind/ On 30/04/2023 4:53 PM, Jennifer Strickland wrote: > > 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) <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> 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://accessibility.civicactions.com > > http://twitter.com/mgifford <http://twitter.com/mgifford> | > http://linkedin.com/in/mgifford <http://linkedin.com/in/mgifford> > > On April 27, 2023 at 12:36:45 PM, Jennifer Strickland > (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> > *Date: *Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 11:32 AM > *To: *WCAG list (w3c-wai-gl@w3.org) <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> > To "WCAG list (w3c-wai-gl@w3.org)" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>; > "Andrew > Kirkpatrick" <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) 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 > >> > >>http://twitter.com/awkawk > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>From: Mike Gifford <mike.gifford@civicactions.com> > >>Date: Thursday, April 27, 2023 at 7:43 AM > >>To: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org> > >>Subject: Re: CFC Move WCAG 2.2 to Candidate Recommendation > >>Resent-From: WCAG <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> wrote: > >> > >>>+1 > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>From: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com> > >>>Date: Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 7:14 PM > >>>To: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org> > >>>Subject: CFC Move WCAG 2.2 to Candidate Recommendation > >>>Resent-From: WCAG <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 -- Léonie Watson (she/her) Director https://tetralogical.com
Received on Wednesday, 3 May 2023 15:05:49 UTC