[theme-reviewers] Accessible theme issues

[Chip Bennett]

Perhaps a more appropriate tag would be "accessibility-ready"?

Chip

On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 10:06 AM, esmi at quirm dot net <esmi at quirm.net>wrote:

> on 28/09/2012 14:44 Edward Caissie said the following:
>
>  Perhaps three tags: Accessibility-A, Accessibility-AA,
>> and Accessibility-AAA? Just some food for thought ...
>>
>
> As much as I'd love for that to happen, I would be very wary of
> implementing that.
>
> 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].
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> Mel
>
> [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 <http://make.wordpress.org/**support/<http://make.wordpress.org/support/>
> >
>
> --
> http://quirm.net
> http://blackwidows.co.uk
> ______________________________**_________________
> theme-reviewers mailing list
> theme-reviewers at lists.**wordpress.org<theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org>
> http://lists.wordpress.org/**mailman/listinfo/theme-**reviewers<http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wordpress.org/pipermail/theme-reviewers/attachments/20120928/2694ca6f/attachment.htm>