Brian Cameron wrote: >Willie: > >This agenda looks good, but here are some things I'd like to see more >focus on: > >+ There are many a11y components, and it seems like not many people > understand some of them. java-access-bridge, the registry daemon, > etc. It would be nice to get an overview of how all the components > fit together, > I intend to focus on the above in my intro slot.
>and how to approach mapping a bug to the responsible > component, and how to debug each component. > > That would probably be a useful topic too, if we can find time somewhere. >+ I think a *lot* of a11y bugs are really the same sort of problems > that you see over and over again. Programs that do not have > accessible labels for widgets, for example. Perhaps it would be > useful to pick a few bugs that are examples of the common a11y bugs > that exist and do an exercise where we demonstrate the bug (how to > see that the bug exists), and then actually fix the bug. Probably > lots of these kinds of bugs are simple 1-line fixes, and if we showed > people that it is actually easy to identify and fix these sorts of > bugs (if you know how), then perhaps we would find more community > involvement in getting these sorts of issues addressed. > > I believe our current documents address these issues in some detail (see the various articles posted in http://developer.gnome.org/projects/gap/Testing and on the intro GAP page); a good question would be how to better highlight the existance of those documents and improve them. >I think it would be more useful to have two tracks instead of just one. >One track for people interested in doing development in a11y and >one for people interested in making their application(s) better support >a11y. I think only people interested in doing active a11y development >would be interested in current a11y gaps. Probably most people's time >would be better spent helping to get them to understand how to get more >involved with fixing existing bugs, and what they should be doing to >make sure their applications are reasonably accessible. If we only do >1 track, I think we should minimze the time we spend talking about >future pie-in-the-sky things when there is so much work to do just >getting what already has been implemented to actually work. I think >this is perhaps the most important thing, and isn't reflected at all >in your 3-bullet breakdown of the day... > > I empathize with your point but there do seem to be different perspectives about what the a11y summit should be about. I am not sure that a tutorial focus is in line with what the contributors to the a11y summit wiki have posted so far. I think such a track would be a great thing to have at GUADEC 2007 however... regards Bill > > * What do we have? > > * What do we need? > > * How do we get there? > >Brian > > > > >>After consideration of all the suggestions from the community (THANKS!), >>I've put together a straw man agenda for the Accessibility Summit for >>October 8, 2006, as part of the GNOME Boston 2006 Summit: >> >> http://live.gnome.org/Boston2006/AccessibilitySummit >> >> >>The agenda is still up for discussion, so please send your comments. >> >>Thanks! >> >>Will >>(Your happy chair) >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>gnome-accessibility-list mailing list >>gnome-accessibility-list@gnome.org >>http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-accessibility-list >> >> > >_______________________________________________ >gnome-accessibility-list mailing list >gnome-accessibility-list@gnome.org >http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-accessibility-list > > _______________________________________________ gnome-accessibility-list mailing list gnome-accessibility-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-accessibility-list
