[WG: Accessibility] Sakai Accessibility Teleconference this week

[Londergan, M D]

Mike, 

Thanks as always for your helpful input. We will cover the issues raised in Gonzolo's and Sean's email on the call today. Your input is always of great help. I look forward to the Sakai Accessibility WG evolving a revised accessibility objective that takes into account WCAG2.0 and in particular issues related to AJAX and Aria. 

Sorry you will be unable to join us today. 

Margaret 

-----Original Message-----
From: accessibility-bounces at collab.sakaiproject.org [mailto:accessibility-bounces at collab.sakaiproject.org] On Behalf Of Michael S Elledge
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 10:16 AM
To: Silverio, Gonzalo
Cc: accessibility at collab.sakaiproject.org
Subject: Re: [WG: Accessibility] Sakai Accessibility Teleconference this week

Hi Gonzalo (and everyone)--

In the past, Sakai's accessibility objective was compliance with WCAG 
1.0 Priority One and Priority Two criteria. Since WCAG 2.0 has now been 
released, Sakai's standards would have to be revised somewhat to remain 
consistent. WCAG 2.0 Level A actually adopts a number of Priority Two 
criteria so it is a more robust standard (I've attached a presentation 
that I gave recently at U Mich that illustrates this). But Sakai may 
still want to pull in some Level AA criteria.

Exactly what a "new" or "revised" Sakai standard should be, however, 
still needs to be determined and is really the purview of Margaret and 
the rest of the accessibility group. I'll be happy to work on it with 
Margaret and the group, since we're starting to address it at MSU 
anyway, but that's her call.  :^)

BTW, I will be unable to meet today because of a time conflict, just to 
let you know.

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"
>
>
>   
_______________________________________________
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"