SUMo accessibility self assessment - for comments

Kyle_Katarn
Site Admin
Posts: 1332
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 8:13 pm

SUMo accessibility self assessment - for comments

Post by Kyle_Katarn » Fri Aug 16, 2019 9:29 am

Dear users,

In order to provide guidance to users looking at accessibility capabilities of SUMo, we are proposing a VPAT (Voluntary Product Accessibility Template) self assessment against "Section 508 /1194.21 Software Applications and Operating Systems" criteria, with compliance statement and associated comments.

Should you, from your user experience have comments or questions on the way we self-assessed SUMo, please discuss here.

https://kcsoftwares.com/?accessibility

Kyle

scheff
Posts: 96
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2019 3:00 pm
Location: DE

Re: SUMo accessibility self assessment - for comments

Post by scheff » Tue Aug 20, 2019 6:24 pm

Hi Kyle,

please provide more context information.
  • What's this VPAT?
  • Where does it come from?
  • For which location does it apply?
Such introduction would be fine here as well as on the linked page. A link to its source would be fine too.

In the current state, you already refered to 2 Mantis issues. But according to my memory, there should be at least one more. I don't remember the wording and so didn't find it. It was of a user using screen reader which is a traditional option for persons with strong visual limitations.

As far as I understand, you consider this forum, Mantis BT and email as optional features of SUMo for feed back, support and error reporting. I couldn't see this covered by the entries of your linked table so far. So please widen the scope of the assessment accordingly.

In the table, you already made a note on blinking and frequency (row (k)). I couldn't find a link to a Mantis issue. And I'm not aware of an existing one. Does this mean that you don't intent to change the frequency or to render it configurable in certain limits?
And don't forget the smilies in the forum. While most are static, one dynamic one, I don't consider as blinking while I consider 3 as blinking even so I didn't change forum presentation of its default of flash off.

In the table, you already mentioned something about the relation between image and text in row (d). I don't consider this assessment as sufficient, especially as far as tool tips are concerned. I never used a screen reader nor a text-to-speach interface. So I may only guess that these will not speak the tool tips as long as the mouse or equivalent isn't moved on that area. How may people depending on such an interface know that tool tips are available? Other applications use an icon with the letter i placed inside to indicate availability of a tool tip or linked reference.

Please don't forget the SUMo integrations with some programs configured as standard programs within the operating system, like text editor, email program and web browser. Please collect feed back of these people with strong visual limitations on these interfaces, if they understand what happened and keep oriented resp. lost orientation. And there is already a Mantis issue on people with a program configured as standard for email which isn't working as they don't use this one but instead use a web browser for webmail access to their emails, issue 4305 (https://www.kcsoftwares.com/bugs/view.php?id=4305).

Kyle_Katarn
Site Admin
Posts: 1332
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 8:13 pm

Re: SUMo accessibility self assessment - for comments

Post by Kyle_Katarn » Sun Aug 25, 2019 3:25 pm

VPAT stands for Voluntary Product Accessibility Template and is standart way to assess accessibility criteria for software (but not only). Lear more here : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary ... y_Template

Regarding your comment on the screen reader, I don't remember precisely... maybe is it a related issue to the one linked ? (this is the general one about the "High DPI" issue, which has a certain number of duplicate item in the database)

Regarding scope, it's now explicit :
Software under seft-assessment : SUMo 5.9 (desktop software client only, neither SUMo result web pages, nor "SUMo Online" dashboard)
Regarding blinking and frequency, there was no Mantis issue so far. I've created one, since it's typically something I can improve quite easily : https://www.kcsoftwares.com/bugs/view.php?id=5667 - VPAT Page corrected accordingly.

As usual, thanks for your feedback !

scheff
Posts: 96
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2019 3:00 pm
Location: DE

Re: SUMo accessibility self assessment - for comments

Post by scheff » Mon Aug 26, 2019 7:41 am

Kyle_Katarn wrote:
Sun Aug 25, 2019 3:25 pm
Regarding your comment on the screen reader, I don't remember precisely... maybe is it a related issue to the one linked ? (this is the general one about the "High DPI" issue, which has a certain number of duplicate item in the database)
No, it's not that one. As I couldn't find it with a query in Mantis, I've now repeated that query in forum and can report that I couldn't identify any Mantis issue with that forum thread and post:
https://www.kcsoftwares.com/forum/viewt ... ader#p5375

The same user had already raised threads https://www.kcsoftwares.com/forum/viewt ... ader#p5295 and https://www.kcsoftwares.com/forum/viewt ... ader#p5025 for screen reader implications.

Have you already invited and raised this users attention to this new thread?
Last edited by scheff on Mon Aug 26, 2019 1:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

scheff
Posts: 96
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2019 3:00 pm
Location: DE

Re: SUMo accessibility self assessment - for comments

Post by scheff » Mon Aug 26, 2019 7:58 am

Kyle_Katarn wrote:
Sun Aug 25, 2019 3:25 pm
Regarding scope, it's now explicit :
Software under seft-assessment : SUMo 5.9 (desktop software client only, neither SUMo result web pages, nor "SUMo Online" dashboard)
No, I disagree. You're missing the forum in your list as already reported in thread https://www.kcsoftwares.com/forum/viewt ... ader#p5025

I did not yet lookup your source of that VPAT initiative. So I can't yet comment if your note on scope needs also documenting why the scope is so limited although these other areas are all integrated into SUMo (client) itself.

When I'm writing such a feedback, I need to open forum several times (for better structuring, lookups, consistency). I configured it as tabs in the web browser. For visually impaired people, they certainly can do that too. But I don't expect them to perform such consistency checks during their writing of a post or thread in the forum, expecting such checks only before if at all.
Last edited by scheff on Mon Aug 26, 2019 1:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.

scheff
Posts: 96
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2019 3:00 pm
Location: DE

Re: SUMo accessibility self assessment - for comments

Post by scheff » Mon Aug 26, 2019 11:59 am

scheff wrote:
Mon Aug 26, 2019 7:58 am
I did not yet lookup your source of that VPAT initiative. So I can't yet comment if your note on scope needs also documenting why the scope is so limited although these other areas are all integrated into SUMo (client) itself.
Since version 2.0 of the registered template, European standards as well as global web standards are taken into account. Considerung your user base, I don't know if even the international variant of that template is sufficient. SUMo has a significant user base in Russia, China and Latin America which are not covered by that template. Can some other forum users confirm my assumption that there exist corresponding accessibility rules in these regions and provide links to these rules. If there exist English or French translations of these rules would be fine too. After receiving such links and informations, it can be considered which sections need to be added to the template.

On the service mark holders web page, I only find version 2.3 of that template, issued in April 2019, so long before your assessment and before release of the version of the product assessed. See here https://www.itic.org/dotAsset/b6b23e78- ... 3b79d.docx for the international template as your user base is not limited to the US.

Didn't yet read through the whole set of documents, just a first glance.

Hence, I consider your accessibility page currently in draft mode. Please mark it at such as I don't consider neither the assessment completed nor the reporting. I further consider that current draft in violation of the template which implies that you're not allowed to mention, refer or name the template, see first paragraph of page 3 of the template. You may annotate not only a draft marking but also a revision identification of the draft or report as indicated in the Best Practices for Authors section. A revision can be a unique number or a date or some other kind of identification.

I recommend to add first the missing sections, even if not yet completed, see template and service mark holders comments on proper use of that registered service mark (the [empty] template itself). This gives you an indication what still remains to assess or to report. According to sub-section Saving Space of section Best Practices for Authors any missing section requires a corresponding note why the named section is missing (page 8 of the template). Yeah, even that section of the template has an error as it says to list the four situations to render missing sections acceptable and provides examples of implications. This list of four situations names five situations in the service mark holders template!

It seems that you're confusing subjects. VPAT is a registered service mark. Only the service mark holder may publish templates during the time of validity of such registration which is at least for the years 2007 unto 2027. What you want to publish isn't a template but a report instead as decribed under number 4. of section Essential Requirements for Authors on page 4 of the template, in section Best Practices for Authors on page 7 of the template, in section Posting the Final Document on page 9 of the template and on top of the report section on page 11 of the template.

As far as I understood, reordering of sections of the report is only allowed for the tables. So the disclaimer section comes at the bottom, not at the top. And your disclaimer section is almost no disclaimer section. Only its last sentence sounds like a disclaimer. The other sentences can be put into introduction or into notes section. According to the template, introduction is optional while the notes section is not. The notes section may be left empty but as far as I can see, you want to provide content also in the notes section.

As your product design includes the integration of SUMo forum, SUMo Online dashboard and SUMo Mantis BT, it cannot be excluded of the assessment nor the report according to my understanding. What in contrast is considered acceptable to split this integrations into separate reports. This implies that you reference these other reports in each other. So as long as your report is in draft revision, you should either include corresponding information in your report. If you decide to go for split reports, don't forget to identify those reports and to cross-reference them. While in draft revision, this cross-reference might temporarily be a in the form of a remarque of pending publication.

As far as I can see, your accessibility web page consists only of the draft report. You didn't mention what else you want to publish in addition on the same page. As the template is rather long, I don't consider it a good idea to have the not mentioned information and the accessibility report on one web page. Please consider a different integration. You might redesign the home page and replace the contacts section by an about section pushing the current contacts section into the about section. Such an about section may include also the privacy section and later the accessibility section. The ability section may include the accessibility reports as well as guiding hints for accessibility like how to configure the product for which kind of accessibility.

I'm using the Firefox web browser currently. For the purpose of this thread and analysis, it is conveniant to enable its inspector. This reveals several other issues. Have you already enabled it and looked at accessibility section yet?

As already mentioned, the title is determined by the template unless you opt for such an optional split. Currently I read KC Softwares as the title. According to the template the title should be KC Softwares Accessibility Conformance Report International Edition as far as I understand. That's the minimum required on the report title. I don't see a problem if you want to extent it by product name, eventual subreport identification like client, dashboard, forum, issue tracker, (help and privacy) web pages.

I've to take a break as I fear loosing the content otherwise.
Last edited by scheff on Mon Aug 26, 2019 1:51 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Kyle_Katarn
Site Admin
Posts: 1332
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 8:13 pm

Re: SUMo accessibility self assessment - for comments

Post by Kyle_Katarn » Mon Aug 26, 2019 1:22 pm

scheff wrote:
Mon Aug 26, 2019 7:58 am
Kyle_Katarn wrote:
Sun Aug 25, 2019 3:25 pm
Regarding scope, it's now explicit :
Software under seft-assessment : SUMo 5.9 (desktop software client only, neither SUMo result web pages, nor "SUMo Online" dashboard)
No, I disagree. You're missing the forum in your list as already reported in threat https://www.kcsoftwares.com/forum/viewt ... ader#p5025

I did not yet lookup your source of that VPAT initiative. So I can't yet comment if your note on scope needs also documenting why the scope is so limited although these other areas are all integrated into SUMo (client) itself.

When I'm writing such a feedback, I need to open forum several times (for better structuring, lookups, consistency). I configured it as tabs in the web browser. For visually impaired people, they certainly can do that too. But I don't expect them to perform such consistency checks during their writing of a post or threat in the forum, expecting such checks only before if at all.
Good point, i missed this forum thread !

scheff
Posts: 96
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2019 3:00 pm
Location: DE

Re: SUMo accessibility self assessment - for comments

Post by scheff » Mon Aug 26, 2019 1:47 pm

According to requirement 2 of the essential requirements for Authors of the VPAT, the final report shall be accessible too, not only the assessed product. For this reason, the findings of the accessibility section of inspector of Firefox for your accessibility web page are relevant too. It provides a Word document format and names HTML and PDF as examples of other suitable report formats. None of them is accessible per se. But they may be used in an accessible manner.

And there are several issues. I.e. the inspector tells me that there are unnamed sections. Wouldn't it be better if these sections are named?
Why not speak of KC Softwares site top navigation bar, KC Softwares accessibility page top section, KC Softwares accessibility title section and so on?
And contrast isn't sufficient for accessibility. In the unnamed KC Softwares accessibility page top section, I see text reported as contrast 2.43 where as Mozilla accessibility recommends a minimum of 4.5 unless corresponding text is at least 20-50% larger. Then a minimum contrast of 3 might be acceptable too. As far as I know this recommendation concerns not blind people but instead people with existing and reduced visibility capacity as well as people with some kind of color blindness. But I've already read text on web pages where even ordinary people couldn't read because contrast was 0, meaning that text and background had identical colors! (Selecting text including hidden one is a means of inverting text colors and make such hidden text visible in the web browser. That's first annoying if the text refers to some named section which I couldn't find. I didn't see design issues on KC Softwares web site.)

scheff
Posts: 96
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2019 3:00 pm
Location: DE

Re: SUMo accessibility self assessment - for comments

Post by scheff » Mon Aug 26, 2019 3:12 pm

Did you change the forum configuration?

I can't remember such strange new behaviour. Sometimes I loose the content of my draft posts written during more than an hour, sometimes I get required to reauthenticate without getting informed that with reauthentication I may return to the draft post. Now I lost and have to repeat again! That's annoying. It would be helpful with such a configuration to get a hint that appearing of login page isn't an error and doesn't loose the previous content unless certain operations are performed. It would be clearer to distinguish between need for reauthentication and error handling of the forum software with corresponding hints!

scheff
Posts: 96
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2019 3:00 pm
Location: DE

Re: SUMo accessibility self assessment - for comments

Post by scheff » Mon Aug 26, 2019 3:16 pm

So again, as far as I remember, I reported that there are even more inconsistencies in VPAT by the service mark holders. I provided already one example in a previous post. Now I see again that they don't properly distinguish different kind of sections. They use the terms title, heading. While section is always correct, they don't use title markup when naming title nor heading markup when naming heading! And the example for the named heading looks like a sub-title although they didn't mention sub-title nor sub-title markup.

Post Reply