Child pages
  • Accessibility WG Teleconference Minutes 02-11-2010
Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

Sakai Accessibility Working Group Teleconference

February 11, 2010 - Notes by Mary Stores


  • Brian Richwine, Indiana University
  • Gonzalo Silverio, University of Michigan
  • Mike Elledge, Michigan State University
  • Scott Williams, University of Michigan
  • Mary Stores, Indiana University
  • Eli Cochran University of California Berkeley

Accessibility statement:

  • The statement has been sent out to the management e-mail list, along with a cover letter. No feedback has been received.
  • Eli has also mentioned at the product council meeting, and people suggested small changes which have been added to confluence.
  • Jon Norman is concerned that this group could develop goals and criteria but not back it up with resources; however, the feeling from most of the product council, including John Norman, is that this group is genuinely backing up the criteria presently.
  • Eli has the blessing of both the product council and the rest of the management list, so he will now send out to the rest of the community.

Concerns to Address before Sending Out the Statement Further

  • An introduction to the statement should be written to the Sakai community. How should we introduce the statement?
  • When giving feedback, it might be good to pose pointed questions:
    • Does the accessibility statement address what you think it should address?
    • Does it fit with your expectations for accessibility of Sakai?
  • Eli will send out the statement after the concerns about guidelines and the introduction have been addressed (see below).
  • After feedback from community is received, the statement will also be sent to people privately at the ATRC (Univ. of Toronto). Some of them have worked with or presently work with the Sakai project as well.
  • Who else should the statement be sent to? Eli sent out email regarding list of lists: UX, Pedagogy, Dev list, QA, user list, etc.
  • Is meeting level a guidelines sufficient? What if it is too difficult to meet both level A and AA guidelines?
    • When we say our goal is to meet these success criteria, we have allowance for not being able to meet them.
    • Brian is hoping that we would have an accessibility goals document.
    • Webaim links the A, AA and AAA success criteria
    • a. Case law generally allows for AA compliance.
    • Some AA criteria include error recovery, visible focus, and multiple ways to navigate.
    • This concern should be addressed on list before the next teleconference.
    • Brian will write up this action item.

Accessibility review for Sakai 2.7:

  • Alan Berg gave Brian access to log on as an admin.
  • Brian is using a tool used in QA where content is created and the process can be recorded; it will be useful in case of server rebuild to quickly restore content.
  • On the accessibility review page there is a list of tools to sign up for review, and in the right-hand column, under the info heading, Brian has created walkthrough scripts for all the high priority tools as well as the medium-priority tools.
  • Walkthrough scripts lead you through the steps a student would use.
  • On the bottom of the page are notes to create the content. If content needs to be created, e-nail Brian.
  • Also on the bottom of the accessibility review page, there are accessibility evaluation and testing protocols - Firefox with plugins, which tells you how to find and set up plugins for code review and looking at the performance of the page.
  • The other protocol is using JAWS.
  • Ideally, protocol could be written up for Window-Eyes and Dragon Naturally Speaking.
  • The accessibility review page also has the links to servers. Alan berg suggest QA1-nl server, but if that server is down, there is a link to the QA server.
  • By next teleconference, high and medium tools should be tested. If there are questions regarding the review, please put accessibility review in subject line of e-mail to Brian.

Resolving Open Jira Tickets:

  • Gonzalo is going through Jira tickets; there are 90 tickets with accessibility components.
  • Mary, Joe and Brian are going to meet regularly to go through them to see if accessibility issues are still current. If this is the case, they will revise the ticket so enough info goes in, and it will be easy to recreate the accessibility issue and repair it.

Sakai 3:

We are afraid of losing the momentum of working with Sakai 3. Sakai 3 needs to still be on focus; we need to working with developers and addressing concerns.

Suggestions for Creating Video for Sakai 3 Developers:

  • Jing is a possibility: there is also a companion sight called
  • Mike will also find out about what developers used for 2.0 development; may have used camtasia.
  • No labels