Success Criteria Dependencies &Prioritization: Implication & Use CSUN 2017, San Diego Sean Kelly, Bill Tyler March 3, 2017

Bill ≠ Sean

(We are not related)

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

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

We ♥ WCAG

5

But it’s not perfect…

6

We found it has…

Undocumented (or under-documented) dependencies & relationships between success criteria

7

The default levels (A/AA/AAA) are

Generic.

Broad.

Not tailored to specific enterprise or project needs

8

Because of this lack of fine tuning, It can be difficult to

Integrate WCAG into Agile

Fitting A/AA into Sprints & Releases

9

Dependencies

10

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

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

Fixing those issues reveals other (hidden) issues

This is the origin of our design pattern: FaR

13

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

FaR & WCAG

15

Does WCAG have a Level "Zero A?"

We think we found one...

16

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 meetthem 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

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 auser's ability to use the whole page, all content on the Web page (whether it is usedto 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

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

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

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

Are these all “CR5-like” criteria equal?

No.

22

Prioritization

23

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SCP & Agile

More prioritization benefits

31

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

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

Minimum Accessible Product Or MAP

34

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

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

Putting it alltogether…

37

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

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

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

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

42

Thank you. Contact information:

Sean Kelly Digital Accessibility Engineer sean_kelly@optum.com @sk55408

Bill Tyler Sr. Digital Accessibility Engineerbtyler@optum.com @billtyler

43