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

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