Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

RFC 37: Making Wagtail Accessible for users of assistive technologies #37

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: master
from

Conversation

@thibaudcolas
Copy link
Member

commented Apr 25, 2019

@SimonDEvans

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Apr 29, 2019

Thanks @thibaudcolas, this is great! It would be nice to have some more detailed information on how we intend on automating some of this, eventually.

@thibaudcolas

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

commented May 1, 2019

@SimonDEvans thanks for the feedback 🙂 I'll add more info about tooling in the Tooling setup section. What's completely missing from it at the moment is the fact that we need a standard testing environment, for automated testing to be meaningful.

@KalobTaulien

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented May 1, 2019

To me this was very thorough. I think targeting the AA standard is a good idea and letting it be known that Wagtail is AA-compliant would be a benefit (and selling point) for large organizations and government bodies (emphasis on gov. bodies we have higher, more strict accessibility requirements).

@kaedroho

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented May 3, 2019

This all sounds great to me!

Sorry I can't give any constructive feedback, this isn't something I have much past experience with.

@jonnyscholes
Copy link
Member

left a comment

Looks great to me! The tooling stuff is all really exciting - looking forward to seeing and learning from what gets implemented.

- Do a comprehensive design audit
- Agree on the final format of the design system (Sketch? React components? HTML + CSS snippets?)
- Agree on how the design system would evolve as part of Wagtail’s features development and release process
- Identify components to port from the current style guide of snippets to the design system

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@jonnyscholes

jonnyscholes May 8, 2019

Member

I think this is a great idea and will push us in a direction we need more broadly. Perhaps as an action of this RFC an issue can be created to discuss and track the production of a design system?

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@jonnyscholes

jonnyscholes May 8, 2019

Member

It's good that this RFC mentions this, but I wouldnt want to see what is no doubt going to be a long conversation bog down getting this RFC approved/implemented.

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@thibaudcolas

thibaudcolas May 17, 2019

Author Member

🙂 this part of the RFC is really aspirational. It comes from a discussion with @Katielocke3 who's been contributing to this accessibility push on the UX side. I think our intent here is to suggest ways to change our dev process so accessibility isn't just a box that's ticked at the end, but yes, realistically this won't happen because of this RFC alone. A design system probably deserves its own RFC!

@thibaudcolas

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

commented May 17, 2019

Thanks everyone for the feedback 🙂 It's referenced in the RFC's content but just in case some might have missed it, we're already making progress on what’s discussed here – if anyone wants to follow along the progress is tracked on https://github.com/wagtail/wagtail/projects/5.

The one goal is to make Wagtail accessible. I broke this down into three layers to separate the fundamentals of improving the user experience, from compliance requirements, and process improvements.

1. Enable users of assistive technology to efficiently manage and edit content in a Wagtail powered site.[\[1\]][1]
2. Meet accessibility standards - this means making Wagtail ‘perceivable, operable, understandable and robust’ for all users. **We will target the international accessibility standard, WCAG 2.1, to the AA conformance level.**

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@alastc

alastc Jun 21, 2019

I'd suggest also referencing the Authoring Tool guidelines: https://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG20/
The primary thing is to get the interface to WCAG 2.1, but it should also support authors in creating accessible content which is specced in ATAG.

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@thibaudcolas

thibaudcolas Jul 23, 2019

Author Member

Thank you, that’s a really good point. I’ll need to do some research on how established ATAG is, not sure whether it’s reasonable to expect people to be familiar with it, or whether we need to find tools that automate the testing to some extent. And also how it is referenced in the national legislations we usually look at.

At the very least ATAG should be mentioned here, but ideally I’d also like to have a clear ATAG compliance target if it feels appropriate.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
6 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.