- From: Hidde de Vries <hidde@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2019 13:32:00 +0200
- To: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
- Cc: "wai-eo-editors@w3.org" <wai-eo-editors@w3.org>
Hi Shadi, > 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. Yes, actual product. Would also be a proponent of showing (illustrations of) real 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? Yes, I think explaining that kind of functionality exists, would bring the video closer to the way product teams think about verifying quality of their work, including their accessibility work. >> * 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? I think ‘false positives’ is more common than ‘false results’. > > 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 11:32:57 UTC