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

Hi Hidde,


On 06/09/2019 13:32, Hidde de Vries wrote:
> 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.

We did not get to discuss this last Friday but we can bring it back to 
the group this Friday if needed. Currently we do not plan to show any 
specific products, including browsers and plugins, to maintain vendor 
neutrality. These videos are currently intended to use abstract style 
illustration. The visuals are primarily intended to support the audio, 
which is why the videos (currently) do not need audio descriptions. It 
would add significant complexity if we start showing specific products. 
Do you feel strongly about this?


>>> * 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.

Text has been updated to say:

[[
Tools can integrate into different work environments. For example, into 
your web browser, content management system - CMS, code editor, or 
JavaScript framework.
]]


>>> * 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’.

Text now uses "inaccurate results" to avoid this issue:

[[
Yet beware that, at times, tools can provide inaccurate 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 Monday, 9 September 2019 06:44:58 UTC