Some further thoughts... Mariusz, I don't think I agree that WCAG is massive. It can look a little large but I think that's mostly because each guideline is split into smaller pieces and it's quite wordy to avoid ambiguity. There are in 2.1 50 success criteria for AA, many of which can be checked automatically, and many of those that can't don't apply to us as we don't use audio / video. There's also a nice quick reference <https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/quickref/> that can be filtered to remove AAA and anything else unwanted. Once you drill down it can again get quite wordy, but it covers a lot. I think it's worth remembering here is that the point is not to strictly adhere to a standard for the sake of it, just to improve the overall accessibility, and WCAG is a useful and measurable tool to get us some of the way there.
Thibaud, I more or less agree with everything there. I'm not sure developers should have to do full accessibility checks for their changes in the admin. Using a screen reader for example can be very frustrating and confusing if you're not used to it, and it can take an inordinate amount of time, and I don't really wish that burden on (for example) first time committers who already have a lot of stuff to do, I think this will only discourage contributions. I think it should be the responsibility of the accessibility team to provide feedback, suggestions, etc. on relevant PRs or fix things when they're noticed after manual audits. ATAG looks handy, but at first glance we couldn't even get to A, it requires auto-saving. It also generally seems like something that would cover a rich text editor plugged into the admin more than the admin itself, though I think it's laudable as a future target. The more I think about it, I think the DEP should be a process DEP rather than a feature DEP. As others have mentioned, we don't need a DEP to fix accessibility issues - just fix them. But forming a team seems useful, and I think a DEP is required for that. I think the DEP should be limited to: 1. The accessibility team, how membership is decided, who it's accountable to, it's role/responsibilities, etc. 2. Perhaps the initial standard(s) to target, although this could also be decided by the a11y team post-assembly and agreed with the technical board and/or core devs. As I said, I'm happy to write up the DEP, but since it'll be a process DEP, I think I'd need the support of a core dev, someone on the technical board, or just someone who has more knowledge of Django's "bureaucracy", for lack of a better word. Tom On Tue, 26 May 2020 at 01:20, Thibaud Colas <thibaudco...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Tom, > > It’s exciting to see this getting started! To me a DEP would be highly > beneficial, because there is a lot to this that goes beyond finding and > fixing individual issues – it’s more about detailing the a process for > parts of Django to stay accessible over time. Here are things I’d suggest > to cover, in addition to your list: > > - Going further than the targeted standard and tests in CI – outline > clear steps developers should take when testing their work: using developer > tools, screen readers, etc. It’s not practical to just state the standard > as WCAG is quite big, and open to interpretation. And CI testing will never > be enough to reach any degree of compliance. > - I’m not familiar with Django’s development process but generally I > would recommend to use a combination of linting, browser extensions, manual > testing instructions – and CI tests. > - If the accessibility team was to cover more than the Django admin, I > think it would be worthwhile to also include accessibility of sites built > with Django. Django is largely unopinionated about markup, but I remember > its forms markup not being particularly good for screen readers, and the > HTML code snippets in the docs would also be worth reviewing. > - Same goes for admin docs – not too familiar with them myself so I’m not > sure whether they are considered to be part of the admin, or separate. > - I wouldn’t find it surprising if an audit of the Django admin turned up > a lot of issues. IMHO part of the DEP should cover how to manage this – > whether individual issues warrant individual tickets or not, and how to > prioritize the issues if relevant. Which kinds of issues are likely to need > design input. If the DEP is done first, also talk about what kind of > auditing would be valuable, and how to make it happen. > > To help with the initial audit and prioritisation of issues, I would > suggest to first start by creating a map of all of the parts of the Django > admin that are to be audited – list all of the individual pages, and all of > the states the pages can be in (success, error, loading – empty content / > some content / paginating, etc). I also find it worthwhile to add a > succinct definition of how each of those pages is likely to be used – for > example things that are only configured once for a site’s lifetime are > presumably not as worth improving as a screen a user would see on a daily > basis. Here is an example in practice: > https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1rTMilzKhcb43Y3fZKGJJeoKWLCR00bfgwVB9f6OaC2U/edit > <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1rTMilzKhcb43Y3fZKGJJeoKWLCR00bfgwVB9f6OaC2U/edit#gid=0>. > This can also be used to track the auditing effort, and form the basis of > an automated test suite for CI (or simply repeat testing). > > Finally, consider ATAG2.0 <https://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG20/> (Authoring Tool > Accessibility Guidelines) compliance additionally to WCAG. At a high level, > ATAG is made of two parts: > > - Part A: Make the authoring tool user interface accessible. That sounds > like what we’re discussing here. > - Part B: Support the production of accessible content. That’s a whole > other topic but feels relevant too. > > ATAG is nowhere near as well known / established / easy to test for, but > it feels very relevant to the Django admin in particular, and I’m sure > there will at least be some useful bits to consider in its success criteria > > Hope this helps! > > Thibaud > > > On Monday, May 25, 2020 at 11:56:39 AM UTC+1, Tom Carrick wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> Thanks for the feedback. I had thought about a DEP when I was writing up >> the original post actually, I just wasn't sure what it should contain. Here >> are my thoughts, based on the feedback so far: >> >> - Defining a standard to target. >> - Forming an a11y team that covers the django admin and all sites in the >> django github organization, and defining its role, membership, etc. >> - Deciding on a CI process >> - An outline of current issues and how to solve them. >> >> If anyone can think of anything else, please let me know. If/when there's >> a consensus I'll start writing a draft. >> >> Mariusz, I mentioned this in the original post, but >> https://www.w3.org/WAI/policies/ has a good overview of laws and EU >> directives in this area. From my browsing through, it seems that they all >> either, have their own national standard, or are using WCAG 2.0/2.1 AA. >> Since we probably don't want to define our own standard, I think AA is the >> way to go. This seems to also be the recommendation I hear from people in >> the accessibility field working on regular websites. AAA seems to be more >> suited for very specialist sites that explicitly target disabled people. >> >> Most of AAA is completely feasible for us, but there are some reasons it >> would be difficult: >> >> - All language needs to be at a lower secondary education level, or have >> an alternative that is. This doesn't seem feasible, for e.g. the >> documentation. >> - Users that are logged out need to be able to resume their session where >> they left off after logging in, with all form fields filled, etc. >> >> There are others that are difficult, but I don't think any apply to us >> currently. >> >> Cheers, >> Tom >> >> >> On Mon, 25 May 2020 at 11:09, Mariusz Felisiak <felisia...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi Tobias, >>> >>> I'm not a WCAG expert, and it's not clear to me what steps we would >>> like to take. In the ticket we have only steps describes as *"very >>> basics which should include"*, so I can imagine that's not all we need >>> to do to be WCAG 2.1 compliant on AAA, AA or A level. As far as I'm >>> concerned WCAG is quite massive. Moreover if we want to make changes in CI >>> we should discussed available tools, etc. We can change colors but what >>> next? We will be not able to guarantee that the contrast of all elements >>> remains appropriate, we cannot do this manually. >>> >>> Best, >>> Mariusz >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> an email to django-d...@googlegroups.com. >>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/be97c4e7-f961-4d46-998f-693ca6076f09%40googlegroups.com >>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/be97c4e7-f961-4d46-998f-693ca6076f09%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>> . >>> >> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/148d658c-2062-4973-ac6c-9f1abd5e95e3%40googlegroups.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/148d658c-2062-4973-ac6c-9f1abd5e95e3%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/CAHoz%3DMavsZmszUrhnQY5L%3DTFBD8KJS4smCTYwj5M0k0PsoJhJw%40mail.gmail.com.
