[WG: Accessibility] Sakai Accessibility Teleconference this week

[Michael S Elledge]

Oops. Here's the presentation on WCAG 1.0 vs. WCAG 2.0.

Mike

Silverio, Gonzalo wrote:
> On 8/13/09 1:16 AM, "Sean Keegan" <skeegan at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>   
>>> Perhaps the way to proceed is to target
>>> Sakai 3 as a locus for aria enabled semantics, where they will be crucial
>>> given it¹s ajaxy ways,  and leave the 2.x  as is, which is generally fairly
>>> accessible in old school ways. Does that sound right?
>>>       
>> That sounds fine.  From my experience, 2.x works in terms of
>> accessibility and if integrating ARIA attributes into the 3.x code is
>> a more effective workplan, than I can support that option.  I suppose
>> the big question that comes to mind is then what are the timelines
>> surrounding 2.7 implementation as well as 3.x target dates?
>>     
>
> 2.7 at the end of the year, 2.8 ~ May 2010, 3.0 sometime later, either late
> 2010 or the next year, not sure.
>
>   
>> Based on the meeting notes, it seems that the inclusion of these
>> roles/attributes in the accessibility checklist is one option to
>> pursue (as was outlined in the meeting notes from 7/30).  How much
>> information do you think is necessary to include in the accessibility
>> checklist - in other words, should there be information specific to
>> ARIA with examples?
>>     
>
> The checklist for 3.0, I am assuming. It is hard to tell. If all goes well
> there will be no need to - Sakai 3.0 will use FLUID components for the most
> challenging widgets and a library of UI elements that will be decorated by
> an ARIA engine with the ARIA attributes. The FLUID components already do
> this (decorate a given DOM with the correct attributes, and update them
> based on user/application interactions).  All the developer will need to do
> is declare a markup fragment to be a type of thing that FLUID or the ARIA
> engine recognizes (a menu, a treegrid, etc.).
>
> If this scenario does not materialize then yes, the developer would need
> this information. I tend to think the best way would be to provide a clear
> match up between a widget and a markup fragment properly ARIAized, so if the
> developer is looking at a design with a spinner, she can just grab the
> corresponding fragment and use it. Instrumenting the fragment to make it
> responsive to interactions, that would be required as well - but at that
> point things become very complicated, so not sure, really.
>
>   
>> Also - is there a specific accessibility criteria (e.g., WCAG 2, etc.)
>> that we are attempting to meet with either the 2.x or 3.x releases -
>> or at least specify to provide direction to developers as to the
>> conformance level?  I was poking around but did not see anything
>> specific on the Sakai site.
>>     
>
> Hopefully Mike can address this.
>
> Thanks, talk to you all later today.
>
>     -Gonzalo
>
> _______________________________________________
> accessibility mailing list
> accessibility at collab.sakaiproject.org
> http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/accessibility
>
> TO UNSUBSCRIBE: send email to accessibility-unsubscribe at collab.sakaiproject.org with a subject of "unsubscribe"
>
>
>   
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Making the Leap to WCAG 2.0--Part 1.ppt
Type: application/vnd.ms-powerpoint
Size: 1028608 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://collab.sakaiproject.org/pipermail/accessibility/attachments/20090813/c77ca794/attachment-0001.ppt