[WG: Accessibility] Accessibility plans for v1?

[Eli Cochran]

I can join in at that time. 

- Eli 

On May 14, 2011, at 2:11 AM, N. Matthijs wrote:

> Hi Alan,
> 
> The 24th works for me. I would suggest that Eli joins in as well, given
> his extensive knowledge about the Fluid project.
> 
> Kind regards,
> Nicolaas
> 
>> Eli - thanks for starting this thread, Brian, thanks for your willingness
>> to
>> help out. We are approaching feature complete and entering the testing
>> phase
>> shortly. Our target is Friday 5/20. During the testing phase would be a
>> great time to begin the review.
>> 
>> We don't have much in the way of useful support materials such as
>> walkthroughs and QA scripts as we've radically revised the UI and pretty
>> much everything we had is out of date. We also don't have resources
>> dedicated to the task at this time, but I will try to step in to provide
>> what we can. I can also help by providing a working server, for the
>> functional testing that you describe. I can be the main point of contact
>> for
>> providing support to this effort.
>> 
>> Given our resource constraints, I think that it might make sense to do an
>> initial, perhaps lighter, evaluation that will give us a sense of where we
>> stand and what deeper evaluation might be needed. What do you think?
>> 
>> I agree that we should have a phone call to begin the process. I don't
>> know
>> who should be involved, but at a minimum myself, Chris, and Nico from the
>> project side, and Brian for sure. Who else?
>> 
>> I propose Tuesday 5/24 at 1000 Pacific | 1300 Eastern | 1800 London for a
>> kickoff. Would that work?
>> 
>> Alan
>> 
>> On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 9:10 AM, Eli Cochran <eli at media.berkeley.edu>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Brian,
>>> Thanks for the write up. Sounds like a significant amount of effort but
>>> also very thorough which is good.
>>> 
>>> Nico,
>>> I'm curious... at what point, given the current development plans, do
>>> you
>>> think that v1 will be ready for this kind of review?
>>> 
>>> I'm not asking to rush anyone, but to figure out how best to plan for
>>> this,
>>> and to see what I can do to help to shepherd it through. Having some
>>> task-based walk-throughs would also be helpful for any QA effort as
>>> well.
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Eli
>>> 
>>> On May 4, 2011, at 8:53 AM, Richwine, Brian L wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hello,
>>> The Accessibility Working Group would be happy to carry out an
>>> accessibility audit of Sakai OAE. Before we can start a review, the
>>> accessibility review lead will need to get a sense of the OAE product
>>> (we
>>> need to understand the functionality (philosophical differences between
>>> CLE
>>> and OLE, use cases and workflows, how to perform administration tasks as
>>> needed to create users, assign roles, create sites/content to interact
>>> with,
>>> etc.).  This will be a considerable effort unless someone is willing to
>>> help
>>> point the way.
>>> Perhaps the best way to start would be to hold a phone meeting with
>>> interested parties to discuss how to get started.
>>> Here is some background on how the Accessibility Working Group has
>>> carried
>>> out reviews for Sakai CLE:
>>> The accessibility working group carries out accessibility reviews by
>>> performing technical accessibility evaluations and functional
>>> accessibility
>>> evaluations:
>>> 
>>> �         The technical accessibility evaluations employ a combination
>>> of
>>> manual code inspection, accessibility add-ons for Mozilla Firefox, and
>>> automated accessibility checkers to evaluate the rendered HTML, CSS, and
>>> user interactions (scripting, form submission, links, etc.).
>>> �         The functional accessibility evaluations are carried out by
>>> having an adaptive technology user perform a series of workflows and
>>> recording the difficulties encountered. The technical evaluations make
>>> sure
>>> the product meets applicable standards / guidelines (Section 508,
>>> WAI-WCAG
>>> 2.0, WAI-ATAG).
>>> 
>>> Unfortunately, it is possible to have a product fully compliant to
>>> accessibility standards and yet the product can be unusable by users of
>>> adaptive technology. The functional accessibility evaluations are the
>>> only
>>> way to know the product is truly usable and enjoyable by everyone.
>>> In both the technical and functional accessibility evaluations the use
>>> of a
>>> walkthrough script is essential to performing a thorough and meaningful
>>> evaluation. For the technical accessibility evaluations the walkthrough
>>> script makes sure we are exercising the product as completely as
>>> possible
>>> and not overlooking any significant UI features and functionality to
>>> test.
>>> For the functional accessibility evaluations the walkthrough script
>>> makes
>>> sure real tasks representing both what users are required to do and want
>>> to
>>> do with the product, and that each use case described in the product
>>> specifications, are covered.
>>> Having some kind of walkthrough scripts (use cases, etc.) we can use to
>>> evaluate the OAE product with would be the ultimate best case.
>>> Walkthrough
>>> scripts we have been creating for evaluation of Sakai CLE have two
>>> parts:
>>> 
>>> �         The first part defines how to configure the product and create
>>> any user accounts and content as needed before a user can carry out the
>>> actions in the walkthrough script.
>>> 
>>> �         The second part tells how to guide a user through the tool�s
>>> various use cases and a description (for the evaluation administrator)
>>> of
>>> what to expect including questions to ask the user (with expected
>>> answers).
>>> 
>>> The walkthrough script should be written to both guide the user through
>>> the
>>> use cases (tests operability and robustness) and to test that the user
>>> can
>>> answer questions relevant to the use case (is perceiving and
>>> understanding
>>> all necessary information and user interface components).
>>> The Sakai CLE evaluations and walkthrough scripts are tool centric. I�m
>>> not
>>> sure if this fits Sakai OAE. Nonetheless, it takes time to learn each
>>> use
>>> case well enough to write a meaningfully complete walkthrough script for
>>> it.
>>> If I could be pointed to any resources helpful for authoring the
>>> walkthrough
>>> scripts that would be great. These could include help documentation, use
>>> case specifications, QA scripts, video walkthroughs, etc.
>>> Sincerely,
>>>  Brian Richwine
>>> 
>>> Brian Richwine**
>>> Adaptive Technology Support Specialist**
>>> Adaptive Technology and Accessibility Centers**
>>> Indiana University - Bloomington/Indianapolis**
>>> http://iuadapts.indiana.edu**
>>> (812) 856-4112**
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> *From:* Eli Cochran [mailto:eli at media.berkeley.edu]
>>> *Sent:* Friday, April 29, 2011 7:13 PM
>>> *To:* Alan Marks
>>> *Cc:* Nicolaas Matthjis; Oliver Heyer; Chris Roby; Richwine, Brian L
>>> *Subject:* Re: Accessibility plans for v1?
>>> 
>>> Well, I'm glad to hear that it hasn't completely fallen off the table.
>>> 
>>> I don't want to stretch the 3akai team any farther than they are already
>>> stretched. I think that the team's velocity is very impressive but I can
>>> see
>>> that there is still a lot to do.
>>> 
>>> But I would love to see the accessibility audit be done before release.
>>> For
>>> me, knowing what the problems are would enough for v1, especially if
>>> there
>>> was a commitment to fix the problems for v1.1, or perhaps v1.0.1.
>>> 
>>> What do you think?
>>> 
>>> I'm including Brian in this email to get the conversation started.
>>> 
>>> - Eli
>>> 
>>> ...... ..... .... ... .. . .  .   .    .     .      .        .
>>> .
>>>             .                  .
>>> eli cochran
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Apr 28, 2011, at 4:50 PM, Alan Marks <alanmarks at sakaifoundation.org>
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Nico and Chris can provide more technical detail, but we've done some
>>> work
>>> throughout to make improve accessibility, but we haven't been through a
>>> review by someone like Brian - so I am quite certain we have holes. I
>>> would
>>> like to get a review done before v1, but I'm not certain we can be
>>> compliant
>>> by June. Depends on what is found.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 4:02 PM, Eli Cochran <eli at media.berkeley.edu>
>>> wrote:
>>> Hi guys,
>>> I'm curious what the plans are for making v1 accessible. Are there
>>> plans?
>>> Things happening behind the scenes? Is it planned for post-v1?
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Eli
>>> 
>>> ...... .... ... .. . . .  .   .    .     .      .        .          .
>>> 
>>> Eli Cochran
>>> project manager, myBerkeley project
>>> Educational Technology Services, U.C. Berkeley
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Alan Marks | Sakai 3 Project Director
>>> tele: 425-785-3284 | skype: skramnala
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ...... .... ... .. . . .  .   .    .     .      .        .          .
>>> 
>>> Eli Cochran
>>> project manager, myBerkeley project
>>> Educational Technology Services, U.C. Berkeley
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> 
>> Alan Marks | Sakai 3 Project Director
>> tele: 425-785-3284 | skype: skramnala
>> 
> 
> 

. . . . . . . . . . .  .  .   .    .      .         .              .                     .

Eli Cochran
project manager, myBerkeley project
Educational Technology Services, U.C. Berkeley

"Software is hard," - Donald Knuth