Perhaps a more appropriate tag would be "accessibility-ready"?<div><br></div><div>Chip<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 10:06 AM, esmi at quirm dot net <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:esmi@quirm.net" target="_blank">esmi@quirm.net</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">on 28/09/2012 14:44 Edward Caissie said the following:<div class="im"><br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Perhaps three tags: Accessibility-A, Accessibility-AA,<br>
and Accessibility-AAA? Just some food for thought ...<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
As much as I'd love for that to happen, I would be very wary of implementing that.<br>
<br>
As I've mentioned previously, I think we have to be very careful not to "over sell" accessible themes to non-technical site owners. I wouldn't want someone to think that, because a theme is labelled Accessibility-AAA, then that's all they have to do in that direction. Far from it. Choosing the right theme is only the beginning. Site authors then have to commit time and care to their content to maintain any level of accessibility [1].<br>
<br>
Secondly, under WCAG 2.0, you cannot use A, AA or AAA without also having content and providing a shed load of documentation. So I think anything that correlates directly to WCAG Levels should be avoided at all costs.<br>
<br>
Instead, just a generic "accessible" or "accessibility-reviewed" advisory tag should be used. All that tag should ever imply is that said theme passed an audit (carried out by the MWA group) using the published accessibility criteria (to be created, published & maintained by the the same group) using the Theme Unit Test Data. No more. Those with the requite knowledge can then check the access review criteria to determine what, if any, further changes they might want to make to the theme itself. Non-technical site owners, in the meantime, can feel reassured that they've got off to the right start.<br>
<br>
In terms of the actual levels of access, I'm thinking of all of Level A checkpoints (which is actually not that hard to achieve) plus some of the more important AA points. We need to make this achievable without a massive learning curve and ensure that WPORG doesn't inadvertently make claims that it cannot back up.<br>
<br>
Mel<br>
<br>
[1] And we're working on that too. The Codex Accessibility page has been completely rewritten and there's an intro type page currently being drafted for the new User Manual at <<a href="http://make.wordpress.org/support/" target="_blank">http://make.wordpress.org/<u></u>support/</a>><div class="im HOEnZb">
<br>
-- <br>
<a href="http://quirm.net" target="_blank">http://quirm.net</a><br>
<a href="http://blackwidows.co.uk" target="_blank">http://blackwidows.co.uk</a><br></div><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">
______________________________<u></u>_________________<br>
theme-reviewers mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:theme-reviewers@lists.wordpress.org" target="_blank">theme-reviewers@lists.<u></u>wordpress.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers" target="_blank">http://lists.wordpress.org/<u></u>mailman/listinfo/theme-<u></u>reviewers</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>