Re: [wbs] response to 'Scripts for Evaluation Intro Videos'

Hi Hidde,


On 28/08/2019 11:27, Hidde de Vries via WBS Mailer wrote:
> * In 5, should we show a real example of a browser plugin rather than just
> cogwheels?

Do you mean an actual product? Reminder that there will also be no real 
browsers shown, just an abstract illustration of browsers.


> * For tools that automatically evaluate accessibility, I've gotten a lot of
> team members at clients excited when I mentioned they could integrate with
> CI/CD (continuous integration / continuous deployment), things like when a
> new Pull Request is created, axe (or something like it) runs and prevents
> merging as long as there are issues. This is great or awareness (as it is
> quite in your face, and, in fact,  in the face of anyone trying to change
> code in a given codebase). Usually similar checks already exist for CSS/JS
> code quality

What is the specific suggestion? Do you mean we should highlight this 
functionality as one of the examples presented in the video?


> * Maybe instead of “false results” we could speak of “false
> positives”?

There are also false negatives. Trying to find a balance between simple 
language and accurate phrasing. What is your concern?

Thanks,
   Shadi

-- 
Shadi Abou-Zahra - http://www.w3.org/People/shadi/
Accessibility Strategy and Technology Specialist
Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)
World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)

Received on Friday, 6 September 2019 11:23:19 UTC