[WG: Accessibility] Accessibility plans for v1?

[Richwine, Brian L]

I can join at this time too. Thanks Alan.

-Brian

-----Original Message-----
From: Eli Cochran [mailto:eli at media.berkeley.edu] 
Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2011 11:46 AM
To: N. Matthijs
Cc: Eli Cochran; Alan Marks; Richwine, Brian L; Oliver Heyer; Chris Roby; accessibility at collab.sakaiproject.org WG
Subject: Re: Accessibility plans for v1?

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 pretty much everything we had is out of date.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