[theme-reviewers] Managing the Accessibility-Ready tag

[Srikanth Koneru]

sufficient reason to go not-approved even for themes that don't have that
tag?


On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 2:56 AM, Joe Dolson <design at joedolson.com> wrote:

> I think it would be awesome if being accessibility-ready were to become
> sufficient reason to go not-approved -- however, given the availability of
> reviewers with the right skill set, I'm not sure that's practical right
> now.
>
> I think that phasing the accessibility ready conditions in with an
> ultimate goal of making them required might be reasonable. In that case,
> the goal throughout would be to help reviewers develop the skill set to
> make those judgements.
>
> It's absolutely true that many aspects of accessibility are subjective --
> we've made the intentional goal of making the theme review requirements as
> explicit as possible, so that most things are not as open to subjective
> judgement as they could be.
>
> Theme check, unfortunately, is pretty impractical for this. I did write a
> set of theme check class extensions about a year ago (
> http://make.wordpress.org/accessibility/2013/02/13/progress-report-theme-review-guidelines-for-accessibility/)
> but they were never picked up.
>
> The problem there is that Theme Check checks the source code, not the
> output -- in order to implement an effective theme check for accessibility,
> we need to be processing the DOM, because that's the body of code that
> actually interfaces with accessibility APIs.
>
> I've thought about writing something for that -- but haven't had the time
> for it.
>
> Although in general terms it's impossible to fully automate an
> accessibility check, it may actually be possible (or at least more
> complete) when you're working with a predefined data set for the content of
> the site. I'll have to think about that.
>
> Best,
> Joe
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 3:13 PM, Otto <otto at ottodestruct.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Joe Dolson <design at joedolson.com> wrote:
>> > Any admin have a reason to think that should stay as is? The work flow
>> > doesn't exist, so I don't think it's practical. The review needs to be
>> done
>> > at a point where the theme author can resubmit with accessibility fixes
>> or
>> > without the accessibility-ready tag, I think.
>>
>>
>> Let's try it from another angle:
>>
>> - Should a theme having the accessibility-ready tag, but having some
>> accessibility problems, be sufficient reason for not-approved, at this
>> moment in time?
>>
>> In short, do we actually have enough reviewers capable of performing
>> an accessibility review to make this a mandatory requirement? Do we
>> have a document to teach people how to perform such a review? Do we
>> have written standards? Better yet, can those standards be turned into
>> objective tests that we can add to Theme-Check?
>>
>> The field of accessibility seems a bit subjective to me. I have read
>> the documents and all the stuff at the make blog on the topic, and I
>> still feel that I would not be qualified to determine what is
>> "accessible" or not.
>>
>> We need some form of standards and people willing to review to those
>> standards in order to make this sort of thing a "required" step.
>> Otherwise we end up with people stuck in the queue forever because
>> nobody's around to do the review for them.
>>
>> -Otto
>> _______________________________________________
>> theme-reviewers mailing list
>> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>>
>
>
>
> --
> ==================
> Joseph Dolson
> Accessibility consultant & WordPress developer
> http://www.joedolson.com
> http://profiles.wordpress.org/joedolson
>
> _______________________________________________
> theme-reviewers mailing list
> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wordpress.org/pipermail/theme-reviewers/attachments/20140121/7530142c/attachment-0001.html>