Make WordPress Accessible

Updates from January, 2016 Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Joe Dolson 9:38 pm on January 24, 2016 Permalink
    Tags: , , standards   

    Accessibility code standards for WordPress in draft 

    The accessibility code standards for WordPress have been added to the core handbook and are open for feedback over the next two week. Also see the Core blog announcement and the draft standards themselves!

  • Joe Dolson 9:22 pm on January 21, 2016 Permalink
    Tags: ,   

    Updates to WordPress theme accessibility guidelines 

    The accessibility-ready guidelines for WordPress themes were updated today. There are no explicit changes to the requirements, but the order of the guidelines has been changed so that it corresponds more effectively to how it makes sense to run tests on the guidelines.

    Additionally, I’ve added some information on how to run tests for each guideline into the guidelines, so that theme developers are more easily able to find information on how to self-test when they’re creating an accessibility-ready theme.

    Review the guidelines.

  • Rian Rietveld 10:23 am on January 19, 2016 Permalink
    Tags: , ,   

    Summary Team Chat for January 18, 2016 


    @trishasalas and @rachievee have been working to organize the docs and create some new drafts in the handbook. Work in progress.


    #34780: Updates screen: Plugin and Theme tables improvements
    We discussed removing the scope from the th and td first and then think of a way to set up the layout, not in a table but in another, more semantic way.

    #34625: wp-login.php site title link points to wordpress.org
    We need to research if themes and plugins would break if the title attribute on the logo is removed. Maybe an option is to have no title output by default for the filter. @arush volunteered to own the ticket.

    #35313: Remove title attributes: Posts, Pages, and CPTs screens
    What to do with icons with a title attribute? For a sighted desktop user, the title attribute is the only indication what the icon means. There are many places where the link is just shown as an icon, and here the totle attribute was useful. We discussed how to solve this: we need to develop a core method to handle tooltips effectively. Andrea will open a ticket for this.

    Color contrast: Some browsers do not support the styling of checkboxes and radio buttons. This means that in some browsers give that borders a poor contrast by default.

    @afercia started to open tickets about the color contrast like #35497: List tables: Post format links improvements
    @rianrietveld will make a list of all the color issues in the Admin, we can use as a reference to open new tickets.

    Accessibility guidelines for core

    @joedolson had some comments on the core a11y guidelines; just a couple, minor changes for clarity. Basically well received by the core team. Joe is waiting for a few more comments from members of the core team that did not have to chance to look at them yet.

  • Trisha Salas 4:09 pm on January 11, 2016 Permalink
    Tags: , , f   

    Accessibility Handbook Update 

    Today I started to add subsections to the Accessibility Handbooks Contributor Spreadsheet and while I was looking over other Handbooks (Docs in particular) I decided it might be best to streamline content even further to separate Informational content about the team, mission, etc from the actual Resource for Developers.  Documentation has a Docs Handbook for their section as well as links to other Handbooks for Developers.  I’d like to see Accessibility follow that format and have reached out to @sewmyheadon and @topher1kenobe to get some insight into how they approached the process.

    Join us in the meeting today, January 11 @ 18:00 UTC or comment here if you have any thoughts or additional ideas to help us move this project forward!

    Thanks to everyone involved for all the help so far!

    • hearvox 4:38 pm on January 11, 2016 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Trisha, great idea to stick with the formats the other teams have adopted as much as we can. One way would be to compose an intro section for the main a11y page — e.g., the big blue box at the top of: https://make.wordpress.org/docs/

    • hearvox 4:58 pm on January 11, 2016 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Another issue is there’s two types of Handbooks:
      1. Many of the Make teams have a handbook that describe the team and how to contribute (eg, “About the Docs Team”, “What We Do…”).
      2. Then there’s the how-to handbooks: Theme, Plugin, and Code Ref, which are written for devs (and are NOT about the team): https://developer.wordpress.org/

      Currently, the A11y Handbook is serving both functions: It’s for contributors and about the team, and it has sections directed to devs (not about the team or contributing).

      That probably isn’t a problem for now, while we’re still writing the handbook, and while the Codex is still the main repository of WP knowledge (and still the highest in most search results).

      But it’s something we should consider for later: Once support resources are housed mainly at developer.wordpress.org, that’s where devs will look for a11y info. Maybe we end up splitting the current Handbook into two, one for-devs and one mainly for-team/contributors.

      Not exactly but kinda like there’s a handbook for the Theme Review Team:

      And the Theme Handbook

      BTW, I’m reading the entire Plugin handbook right now. It is really well-written. I hope ours can be this clear:

    • RachieVee 7:13 pm on January 11, 2016 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      I like the blue box idea on the main make.wp a11y landing as well to serve as an intro and a quick way to get a summary of meeting times.

      I like the “tools” section on the polygot handbook. It might be useful to have a section of tools on the handbook for heading/contrast/general a11y checkers.

      If we’re keeping a11y in one handbook for content writers/designers/developers – then I think what we have now separating by audience is great. I also like that I can get all my information from one handbook versus if there were separate handbooks per audience because often, the lines blur and people using WP have several disciplines. It’s probably easier to keep our content consistent as well if we can cross reference between the audience posts on one handbook.

      What I’d like to see after the “Our Mission” or team intro area, is a section that is a general collection of posts on a11y. Mostly for the what’s, why’s and primers. What’s a heading, what’s alt text, why do we make things accessible, what kinds of disabilities/illnesses do accessible sites cater to etc? So that way in the “audience” sections, there’s no repetition of the “basics”. Each post can go right into the topic without feeling the need to introduce the reader to the concept every time, and instead link back to the primer post instead.

      I agree that contributing can be a separate handbook.

      Looking forward to seeing where this goes. 🙂

  • Trisha Salas 6:47 am on January 8, 2016 Permalink
    Tags: ,   

    Summary Team Chat for January 4, 2016 


    #33952: get_search_form() accessibility improvements

    The main issue when using `get_search_form()` is redundancy.  A lot of  “search, search for… search… search button”

    Given that `get_search_form()` is used in both the admin & the front end as well as by themes it was determined that we will look at a uniform search for the 4.6 release.  In the meantime, we will remove the `title` attribute for a quick ‘win’.

    #35187: Remove title attributes: the terms List Table

    The current structure is semantically inaccurate but fixing it will require some design input to rework the list table layout. We have decided to stick with the original plan to remove the title attributes and find solutions for other issues at a later time.

    Accessibility standards for core

    @joedolson posted an updated link to the Accessibility Standards for Core document from last week. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iySvDJ4duHYt6YlnnjnBNbU5LKAn1uRBMH8FKAfmswE/edit He has asked anyone who is interested to review and make comments.  He will eventually communicate with the core team to get this information into the Core Handbook.


    During the next week I will begin adding sub categories to the sections in this spreadsheet. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1tOYzFn9vc7Ff4yGBmDajelrl7XMDUz4PR5H2lB4exI4/edit.

    The hope is to get more of a structure in place to make it easier to contribute.  So that, rather than needing to figure out where content will go you can pick a subcategory page and focus on the content for that page.
    We also discussed consistency as well as what the need to be sure that any of the content we link to from the handbook is vetted by the Accessibility Team as a whole.

    Next meeting

    Next meeting will be in January 11, 2016 at 18:00 UTC

  • Jen 5:43 pm on January 4, 2016 Permalink
    Tags: annual survey, contributors   

    2015 Contributor Survey 

    Hi accessibility folks! Thanks for all your hard work and contributions in 2015. Could you contribute few more minutes to fill in the 2015 contributor survey? It will help us establish some baselines around the contributor experience so that we can see how things change over time.

    **This is being posted to all the Make teams, so if you subscribe to a bunch of p2s and keep seeing this post, know that you only need to fill the survey in once, not once per team.**

    The survey is anonymous (so you can be extra honest), all questions are optional (so you can skip any that you don’t want to answer), and we’ll post some aggregate results by the end of January. It took testers 5-10 minutes to complete on average (depends how much you have to say), so I bet you could knock it out right after you read this post! 🙂

    There are two sections of the survey. The first has questions about team involvement, recognition, and event involvement, and is pretty much what you’d expect from an annual survey (which teams did you contribute to, how happy are you as a contributor, etc).

    The second section is about demographics so we can take a stab at assessing how diverse our contributor base is. All questions are optional, but the more information we have the better we can figure out what we need to improve. If there’s some information you’d rather not identify, that’s okay, but please do not provide false information or use the form to make jokes — just skip those questions.

    The survey will be open until January 15, 2016. Whether you have 5 minutes now, or 10 over lunch (or whenever), please take the 2015 contributor survey. Thanks!

    Note: I used polldaddy for the survey and I’m guessing there some accessibility issues. If any of you have trouble accessing the survey, please let me know what the issues are so I can pass it on to the polldaddy developer, and we’ll work out a way for your to respond in the meantime.

compose new post
next post/next comment
previous post/previous comment
show/hide comments
go to top
go to login
show/hide help
shift + esc
Skip to toolbar