3. Sean Kelly
Sean’s Experience
Former Photographer and Print/Media Artist
Web since 1996, Accessibility Since 1998
10+ Years in Public Sector and Higher Education
8 Years in State Government
3 yrs. of Ongoing Accessibility Research & Analysis at Optum Technology
3
4. Bill Tyler
• 30+ yrs. of UI/UX Design & Development
• 12+ yrs. in medical devices
• 15+ yrs. in plans & providers
• 2X dot-com survivor
• Started Web 1996
• Started Accessibility 2002
4
11. Not all success criteria are created equal
Some accessibility issues “hide” other issues
These criteria are “special”
• Not meeting them undermines testing as well as site
functionality
11
12. Some criteria must be fixed first
Example:
• Unless basic keyboard operations work it can be (extremely)
difficult to test all accessibility checkpoints
• This led us to the need for lower levels levels accessibility
Essentially a level "Zero A"
12
13. Fixing those issues reveals other (hidden) issues
This is the origin of our design pattern: FaR
13
14. FaR Defined
FaR is an acronym for “Fix” and “Reveal”
FaR is a design pattern: i.e., Fixing issues Reveals others
FaR identifies critical relationships between WCAG success
criteria
• For example:
Fixing
– SC2.1.1 Keyboard
– SC2.1.2 No Keyboard Trap
Reveals issues in
– SC2.4.7 Focus Visible
Which in Turn Reveals issues in
– SC2.4.3 Focus Order
– and by extension through other SC all the way down to 4.1.2. [Name, Role, Value]
14
16. Does WCAG have a Level "Zero A?"
We think we found one...
16
17. Do you know CR5?
Conformance Requirement 5. Non-Interference
• Focuses mainly on “new technology” additions to pages
– See the hypothetical “ZAP” technology example (link below)
• Effectively applies to ALL technology in a web page – including HTML
• Clearly lists FOUR criteria that, if not met, can undermine page
accessibility:
"In addition, the following success criteria apply to all content on the page, including
content that is not otherwise relied upon to meet conformance, because failure to meet
them could interfere with any use of the page:" (my emphasis)
– 1.4.2 - Audio Control,
– 2.1.2 - No Keyboard Trap,
– 2.3.1 - Three Flashes or Below Threshold, and
– 2.2.2 - Pause, Stop, Hide.
Source: https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/conformance.html#uc-conformance-requirements-head
17
18. CR5 is listed with those four criteria
CR5 is clearly listed as a “note” for each of the four criteria
Example: SC2.1.2 No Keyboard Trap
2.1.2 No Keyboard Trap: If keyboard focus can be moved to a component of the page using a
keyboard interface, then focus can be moved away from that component using only a keyboard
interface, and, if it requires more than unmodified arrow or tab keys or other standard exit methods,
the user is advised of the method for moving focus away. (Level A)
Note: Since any content that does not meet this success criterion can interfere with a
user's ability to use the whole page, all content on the Web page (whether it is used
to meet other success criteria or not) must meet this success criterion. See
Conformance Requirement 5: Non-Interference.
Source: https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/keyboard-operation-trapping.html
18
19. CR5 items fit the FaR pattern
SC1.4.2 - Audio Control
• Until fixed screen readers cannot hear page
SC2.1.2 - No Keyboard Trap
• Until fixed keyboard users cannot get to rest of page
SC2.3.1 - Three Flashes or Below Threshold
• Seizures
SC2.2.2 - Pause, Stop, Hide
• Auto-playing and advancing content can be major distraction
19
20. Are the CR5 criteria enough?
In our FaR example there are 3 crits, and only ONE is CR5
Fixing
– SC2.1.1 Keyboard
– SC2.1.2 No Keyboard Trap (CR5)
– Can reveal issues with
– SC2.4.7 Focus Visible
– Which can then reveal issues with
– SC2.4.3 Focus Order
Our answer is “No.”
20
21. Our “Extended CR5-like Criteria List”
Original CR5 Criteria
• SC1.4.2 - Audio Control
• SC2.1.2 - No Keyboard Trap
• SC2.3.1 - Three Flashes or Below Threshold
• SC2.2.2 - Pause, Stop, Hide
Our Additions
• SC2.1.1 - Keyboard
• SC2.4.7 - Focus Visible (Level AA!)
• SC4.1.1 - Parsing
• SC1.3.1 - Info and Relationships (specific subset of situations)
21
24. Need for Prioritization
FaR led to reviewing ALL criteria
We re-prioritized the all criteria based up on our standards
• Our ideal target is WCAG 2.0 AA+ and includes some AAA items
We created a our own criteria based upon our needs
We call it “Success Criteria Prioritization” or SCP “Skip”
24
25. SCP: Process
Created prioritization guidelines to define relative order
Walking the Crits
• Analyze each criterion to answer a particular question
– Prioritizing each relative to other success criteria if at same level
– Try to get a very fine grain order for nearly every criterion so there are few
“ties”
Structure priority in ways so they are:
• Easily understood
• Distinct from – but easily aligned with – WCAG
• Grouped logically and consistently
25
26. SCP Prioritization Guidelines
1. Safety
• Example: SC2.3.1 Three Flashes or Below Threshold
2. FaR Dependencies
• For testing and primary functionality (as discussed earlier)
3. General Site Needs
• Examples:
– Keyboard Operation before Presentation
– Presentation before Forms and Error Handling
4. Business Needs
• Examples:
– We have a lot of forms so they come before media, navigation and language support
– We use little time-based media so it is lower
26
27. SCP Levels
0
10
20
30
Level 0s
4 CR5 criteria
4 FaR “CR5-like” criteria (including one AA)
Level 10s
Remaining Level A criteria not in Level 0s
Includes one AA criterion
Level 20s
All Remaining AA not in 0s and 10s
Some AAA criteria (for “AA+” standards)
Level 30s
All remaining AAA criteria
27
28. SCP Levels & WCAG
Leveling by Tens helps maintain alignment with WCAG
• Aligns well with WCAG
– Number of tens = WCAG “A-level”
• Level 0s = CR5
• Level 10s = A
• Level 20s = AA
• Level 30s = AAA
– We still need to meet and report WCAG conformance
– Accommodates “WCAG AA+” target
Allows prioritization outside of WCAG
• Numbered to prioritize across all criteria as needed
– Allows ordering across principles and guidelines
– Allows ordering between WCAG A-levels
28
29. SCP Level Structure
Numbering not Letters
• Numbering into 4 groups of 10 reduces confusion with WCAG A/AA/AAA
– Example: “Level Zeroes” not easily confused with WCAG
Stratification
• Groups of “guideline-related” criteria order is indexed across levels
Examples
– Time-Based Media at 18, 28 and 38
– Forms and Error Handling are 14, 24 and 34
29
30. Applying SCP: Project Intake
Level 0s and Intake
• Level 0s are a cornerstone of our practice, especially when evaluating
and estimate work involved for new projects
• Level 0 checklists can quickly identify major issues with
– Keyboard operation
– Time-based media operation and content
– Alternate document formats
– Problematic infrastructure platforms such as SharePoint, AngularJS
– Code design issues such as complex <table> layout
– Code implementation issues that may hide deeper issues for AT
• Many of these can be answered by business when preparing proposals
30
32. SCP: An Agile “Success” by Itself
Telling scrum masters success criteria are prioritized (using
SCP) can eliminate discussions and delays when grooming
remediation user stories
SCP can help ensure consistency across projects for the
accessibility practice
32
33. Integrating A11y Agile: MVPs
Aligning Accessibility with MVPs
Minimum Viable Product defined:
[A] version of a new product which allows a team to collect the maximum
amount of validated learning about customers with the least effort.
• Source Wikipedia / Eric Ries: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_viable_product
SCP provides a clear roadmap for MVP accessibility
• Incremental MVP enhancement should improve accessibility as well
Accessibility should have its own MVP targets
33
35. MAP – Overcoming Initial Revulsion
Minimum Accessible Products sound “awful”
• It wreaks of “compromise”
• It suggests agreeing to a reduced accessibility target in final product
MVPs and MAPs are not target deliverables
• “Some caveats right off the bat. MVP, despite the name, is not about
creating minimal products.” - Eric Ries
Source: http://www.startuplessonslearned.com/2009/08/minimum-viable-product-guide.html
• Most MVPs (and MAPs) are incremental to test concepts and stepping
stones to actual releases
35
36. Using MAP to Achieve A11y Goals in Agile
MAP & FaR
• Level 0s can be groomed into earliest sprints to fix critical issues and
overcome a11y blockers
MAP & WCAG Conformance
• MAPs in later sprints can plan targeting Level A, then Level AA
SCP & MAP to Ensure Accessible Deliverables
• Using SCP to define MAP targets can help ensure meaningful
accessibility increments that can be used by some/most
– What good is a site with all AA criteria met but a keyboard trap on the sign in
page?
36
38. Dependencies
Not all criteria are equal – Some are more “important” than
others
FaR – Fix and Reveal
• Fixing some problems Reveals new issues
Existing WCAG required dependencies (CR5)
• “Zero A” criteria
38
39. SCP: Success Criteria Prioritization
Define and apply prioritization order
1. Safety
2. FaR (existing sites)
3. Site Operation
4. Business Needs
Effective naming conventions
• Aligned – but not confused – with WCAG
• Fine grained, “few ties”
• Already defined
• Repeatable across
39
40. SCP Provides
Customized WCAG Approach
• Tailored to enterprise project needs
• Not tied WCAG structure
– Work across principles and levels
– Can be refined to new needs
Consistent Roadmap
• Already defined
• Repeatable
• Can be reviewed, revised & enhanced
• Can be applied and intake and early analysis
40
41. SCP & Agile
Aligns well with Agile using MAP
• Plan and target accessibility targets
• Criteria prioritized: Ready to groom into user stories and sprint
• Plan main FaR dependencies first
• MAP targets can be tracked along WCAG levels
– CR5, A, AA
41
43. Thank you.
Contact information:
Sean Kelly
Digital Accessibility Engineer
sean_kelly@optum.com
@sk55408
Bill Tyler
Sr. Digital Accessibility Engineer
btyler@optum.com
@billtyler
43