Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
Bill Tyler
Principal Digital Accessibility Engineer
Accessibility Center of Excellence, Optum Technology
CSUN 2019, Anahei...
My Experience
35+ yrs. of UI/UX Design and Development
12+ yrs. in medical devices
16+ yrs. in plans and providers
2X dot-...
Agenda
Role-Based Accessibility
• WCAG Role-Based Background
– The Usual Approach
– The Assumptions
• Questioning the Assu...
Role-Based
Accessibility
Overview
No one thinks about accessibility
… except the accessibility expert
Accessibility testing comes at end of development
…wit...
6
Typical Development Sequence (by Role)
Add
A11y
Here
7
There’s something very wrong with this
Add
A11y
Here
Need to Shift Left
QA & A11y – too little, too late
• Roles are focused on testing – not design
– Testing is at end of Sof...
The
Assumptions
9
The Assumptions are:
Developers…
…code accessibility…
using “accessibility-specific”
knowledge.
10
Questioning
the
Assumptions
11
Three Questions for Each Success Criterion
Who?
developer
When?
coding
12
Who?
13
Analysis Process – Ownership Roles
Question 1: Who owns it, and to what level?
The Design Roles…
• Standard
agile role
• P...
Analysis Process – Ownership Levels
Question 1: Who owns it and to what level?
The Levels
• Not Standard RACI model
– Resp...
Is it the Developer?
Still “no.”
Who?
16
WCAG 2.1 Primary Ownership (New SC only)
User Experience Designers #1
• UX Designer: +8 criteria (67%)
• Visual Designers:...
18
WCAG 2.1 Primary Ownership
UX Designer: 44% (22)
Content Author: 20% (10)
Visual Designer: 18% (9)
Developer: 16% (8)
B...
What?
19
Analysis Process – Type
Question 2: What is it?
• Accessibility-specific Knowledge
– Non-accessibility roles probably do n...
What?
21
Is it Accessibility?
Still “no.”
WCAG 2.1 Types (New SC only)
Best Practices still edge out Accessibility
• Best Practices: +7 criteria (58%)
• Accessibili...
23
WCAG 2.1 Success Criteria Types
Best Practices: 54% (27)
Primarily A11y: 40% (20)
User Stories: 6% (3)
Observations
• P...
When?
24
Analysis Process – Introduction: Deliverables
Question 3: When is it made?
• When is the decision first made?
– Identify f...
When?
26
Is it Code?
Still “no.”
WCAG 2.1 Deliverables (New SC only)
Still NOT the code…
• User Story / Requirements : +8 criteria (67%)
• Style Guide: +3 ...
28
WCAG 2.1 Deliverables
Wireframes: 38% (19)
User Stories: 34% (17)
Style Guides: 20% (10)
Code: 4% (2)
Content: 4% (2)
D...
Examples
29
Example (of what NOT to do): “Press the green button on the right.”
Notes:
• Rare instance of single owner, no secondary o...
Example: “Session times out in 5 minutes. Continue? Yes / No”
Notes:
• Business Owner’s only primary ownership criterion
•...
Example: Search, Site Map, Breadcrumbs, Top-nav, In-page links
Notes:
• One of several UX Designer-only primary criteria
S...
(Bad) Example: “Blue on ‘light’ blue” to indicate button or link
Notes:
• One of several Visual Designer primary ownership...
(Bad) Example: “Missing alt attribute in <img>”
Notes:
• Code reviews should already include code validation
SC4.1.1 Parsi...
Looking for WCAG 2.0-only Analysis?
See earlier presentations
• Rethinking Accessibility: Role-Based Analysis of WCAG 2.0
...
Applying Role-based
Accessibility
Shifting Left
36
Opportunities to improve efficiency and quality for both
new and existing sites
Involvement should be early in the design ...
Distribute most common issue remediation to roles
• Agile teams become more self-sufficient
• Design roles make better dec...
Integrate accessibility early in the design process
Distribute accessibility ownership to key decision makers
Targeted, ro...
40
Shift Left: Accessibility in New Projects
QA / A11y Testing
Developers
Content Author
Visual Designer
UX Designer
Busin...
As with new projects, all roles should have targeted role-
based training
As issues are found direct them to correct role ...
42
Shift Left: Accessibility in Project Triage
QA / A11y Testing
Developers
Content Author
Visual Designer
UX Designer
Bus...
Checkpoint ownership does not equal success criteria
ownership
Checkpoints used in testing can be heavily impacted by
how ...
Updates since 2017
“More”
44
2017 CSUN Presentation on WCAG 2.0 led to:
Met Denis Boudreau (Deque)
• Discussing role-based work in common
Accessibility...
Questions?
46
Contact information:
Thank you.
Bill Tyler
Sr. Digital Accessibility Engineer
btyler@optum.com
@billtyler
47
48
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Role Based Accessibility Update: WCAG 2.1 and More 2019-03-14

Role-based analysis of WCAG 2.1 success criteria further emphasizes how designers – not developers – own and make the decisions that impact website accessibility.

Related Books

Free with a 30 day trial from Scribd

See all

Related Audiobooks

Free with a 30 day trial from Scribd

See all
  • Be the first to comment

Role Based Accessibility Update: WCAG 2.1 and More 2019-03-14

  1. 1. Bill Tyler Principal Digital Accessibility Engineer Accessibility Center of Excellence, Optum Technology CSUN 2019, Anaheim Thursday, March 14, 2018 Role-Based Accessibility Update: WCAG 2.1 & More @billtyler btyler@optum.com SlideShare: http://bit.ly/xxxxxx
  2. 2. My Experience 35+ yrs. of UI/UX Design and Development 12+ yrs. in medical devices 16+ yrs. in plans and providers 2X dot-com survivor Started Web 1996 Started in Accessibility 2002 Full time Accessibility Engineer since December 2013 Material Presented Update on role-based analysis of WCAG (2.0) since January 2013 including CSUN 2017 presentation on this same topic Analysis of WCAG 2.1 starting with working draft of September 2017 Background 2
  3. 3. Agenda Role-Based Accessibility • WCAG Role-Based Background – The Usual Approach – The Assumptions • Questioning the Assumptions (with WCAG 2.1 updates) – Who owns them? – What are they? – When are decisions made? • Shift Left: Applying Role-based Accessibility • & More – Updates since 2017 – W3C Working Group Initiative
  4. 4. Role-Based Accessibility Overview
  5. 5. No one thinks about accessibility … except the accessibility expert Accessibility testing comes at end of development …with testing done by the accessibility expert All issues found are directed to developers to fix …with help from accessibility expert Final Result: “Sort of” Accessible Result Problem: The Usual Approach to Accessibility 5
  6. 6. 6 Typical Development Sequence (by Role) Add A11y Here
  7. 7. 7 There’s something very wrong with this Add A11y Here
  8. 8. Need to Shift Left QA & A11y – too little, too late • Roles are focused on testing – not design – Testing is at end of Software Development Lifecycle (SDLC) – Design is at start Input needed earlier • Who needs to know what when? – Who: Role – What: Knowledge – When: Deliverable • Testing needed when design decisions are made, not code • Role-based analysis helps provide rationale for more a11y training of all roles
  9. 9. The Assumptions 9
  10. 10. The Assumptions are: Developers… …code accessibility… using “accessibility-specific” knowledge. 10
  11. 11. Questioning the Assumptions 11
  12. 12. Three Questions for Each Success Criterion Who? developer When? coding 12
  13. 13. Who? 13
  14. 14. Analysis Process – Ownership Roles Question 1: Who owns it, and to what level? The Design Roles… • Standard agile role • Project initiator • Requirements definer • Result approver • Business liaison • Requirement author • Wireframe creator • UX/Usability expert • Presentation owner • Style expert • Layout creator • Design enforcer • Style guide author • Design comp artist • Image file producer • Author of all text “large (section) and small (words)” • Content proofreader • Includes time- based media • Script writer • Audio and video file creator • Front-End Programmer • Last stop before testing • Primary target for all defects
  15. 15. Analysis Process – Ownership Levels Question 1: Who owns it and to what level? The Levels • Not Standard RACI model – Responsible – Accountable – Consulted – Informed • Levels of Ownership Used – Primary – The owner ultimately responsible for the decision – Secondary – Actively involved with primary owner – Contributor – “Gives some input” but is not deeply involved
  16. 16. Is it the Developer? Still “no.” Who? 16
  17. 17. WCAG 2.1 Primary Ownership (New SC only) User Experience Designers #1 • UX Designer: +8 criteria (67%) • Visual Designers: +3 criteria (25%) • Content Author: +1 criterion (8%)
  18. 18. 18 WCAG 2.1 Primary Ownership UX Designer: 44% (22) Content Author: 20% (10) Visual Designer: 18% (9) Developer: 16% (8) Business Owner: 2% (1) Observations Developers have less ownership • Developers only own a little more than 1 of 6 criteria (was 1 of 5) • Developers moved from third to fourth in ownership • WCAG 2.1 adoption should increase training for all roles
  19. 19. What? 19
  20. 20. Analysis Process – Type Question 2: What is it? • Accessibility-specific Knowledge – Non-accessibility roles probably do not know these – Additional training, often minor, will be needed for roles • Best Practice – Roles should know these and already do them, especially primary owner – Minor adjustments maybe needed to revise or apply more of them • Standard Feature – Something so common roles will make the right choice with little or minor changes
  21. 21. What? 21 Is it Accessibility? Still “no.”
  22. 22. WCAG 2.1 Types (New SC only) Best Practices still edge out Accessibility • Best Practices: +7 criteria (58%) • Accessibility-specific Knowledge: +5 criteria (42%)
  23. 23. 23 WCAG 2.1 Success Criteria Types Best Practices: 54% (27) Primarily A11y: 40% (20) User Stories: 6% (3) Observations • Percentages barely changed from WCAG 2.0 • Still over half of decisions are best practices • Accessibility training should continue to focus on topics roles don’t know
  24. 24. When? 24
  25. 25. Analysis Process – Introduction: Deliverables Question 3: When is it made? • When is the decision first made? – Identify first deliverable or point in product lifecycle – Also identify secondary and less common cases • 6 Deliverables 1. User Story / Requirements core specifications and functionality 2. Wireframes structure of page, interface, interactions 3. Style Guides site presentation, branding, colors, logos, layout 4. Design Comps page or feature final presentation 5. Content text, terminology, includes video and audio 6. Code front-end development: HTML, CSS, JavaScript
  26. 26. When? 26 Is it Code? Still “no.”
  27. 27. WCAG 2.1 Deliverables (New SC only) Still NOT the code… • User Story / Requirements : +8 criteria (67%) • Style Guide: +3 criteria (25%) • Content: +1 criterion (8%)
  28. 28. 28 WCAG 2.1 Deliverables Wireframes: 38% (19) User Stories: 34% (17) Style Guides: 20% (10) Code: 4% (2) Content: 4% (2) Design Comps: “0%” Observations • 96% of decisions before code • Wireframes down from over 50% • User Stories up to full third (was 24%) • Full fifth in style guide (was 18%) • Code now equal to Content at 4%
  29. 29. Examples 29
  30. 30. Example (of what NOT to do): “Press the green button on the right.” Notes: • Rare instance of single owner, no secondary owner or contributor • Example of a “Never” event SC1.3.3 Sensory Characteristics 30
  31. 31. Example: “Session times out in 5 minutes. Continue? Yes / No” Notes: • Business Owner’s only primary ownership criterion • Rare Standard Requirement case SC2.2.1 Timing Adjustable 31
  32. 32. Example: Search, Site Map, Breadcrumbs, Top-nav, In-page links Notes: • One of several UX Designer-only primary criteria SC2.4.5 Multiple Ways 32
  33. 33. (Bad) Example: “Blue on ‘light’ blue” to indicate button or link Notes: • One of several Visual Designer primary ownership crits • Visual Designer has no secondary ownership SC1.4.11 Non-Text Contrast 33
  34. 34. (Bad) Example: “Missing alt attribute in <img>” Notes: • Code reviews should already include code validation SC4.1.1 Parsing 34
  35. 35. Looking for WCAG 2.0-only Analysis? See earlier presentations • Rethinking Accessibility: Role-Based Analysis of WCAG 2.0 • Accessible by Design (2018) – YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ovXWPxkA4c – SlideShare: bit.ly/2HJea3e • CSUN (2017) • Minnebar (2015) • UXPA-MN (2014)
  36. 36. Applying Role-based Accessibility Shifting Left 36
  37. 37. Opportunities to improve efficiency and quality for both new and existing sites Involvement should be early in the design process • Includes project intake Distribute and assign ownership (resolution) to other roles All roles should have training tailored to their existing knowledge and skills Checklists for reviewing all design deliverables before sign-off Shift Left: General Changes 37
  38. 38. Distribute most common issue remediation to roles • Agile teams become more self-sufficient • Design roles make better decisions preventing issues at the start • Trained team members can identify and return issues at earlier steps • Train QA to do basic a11y testing Accessibility SME can focus on difficult issues that require their expertise Net Result: Reduce the total number of accessibility SMEs across the enterprise • Important for organizations with hundreds of sites Shift Left: Accessibility Role 38
  39. 39. Integrate accessibility early in the design process Distribute accessibility ownership to key decision makers Targeted, role-based training • Refresher on existing best practices • Accessibility training only on topics they own or impact Success criteria ownership applies most effectively applied to new projects and design cases Shift Left: New Projects 39
  40. 40. 40 Shift Left: Accessibility in New Projects QA / A11y Testing Developers Content Author Visual Designer UX Designer Business Owner ADD A11Y HERE
  41. 41. As with new projects, all roles should have targeted role- based training As issues are found direct them to correct role owner, not simply the developer • Issues directed to specific roles will demonstrate how previous decisions impacted accessibility Shift Left: Triage of Existing Sites 41
  42. 42. 42 Shift Left: Accessibility in Project Triage QA / A11y Testing Developers Content Author Visual Designer UX Designer Business Owner ADDRESS A11Y HERE
  43. 43. Checkpoint ownership does not equal success criteria ownership Checkpoints used in testing can be heavily impacted by how they are written • The more detail in the checkpoint the more clearer the ownership • Multiple checkpoints under same SC can have different owners Remediation testing often assumes intended design understood • Assignment of issues affected original design decisions • If incorrectly or not documented at all – Designers & Author roles likely own • If documented correctly – Developer likely owns Ownership Differences New vs. Existing Sites 43
  44. 44. Updates since 2017 “More” 44
  45. 45. 2017 CSUN Presentation on WCAG 2.0 led to: Met Denis Boudreau (Deque) • Discussing role-based work in common Accessibility Roles & Responsibilities Mapping (ARRM) • W3C Initiative in Education & Outreach working group (EOWG) • 2018 officially joined EOWG as invited experts • Project plan extending into 2020 ARRM Deliverables • Expanded role definitions • DIY decision tree (flowchart) for teams of all types and roles • Large set of examples applied to checkpoints in addition to SC • Many, many more documents
  46. 46. Questions? 46
  47. 47. Contact information: Thank you. Bill Tyler Sr. Digital Accessibility Engineer btyler@optum.com @billtyler 47
  48. 48. 48

×