AmyStephen wrote:Show me one core dev blog post that says accessibility can be reduced to a simple mechanical test. That is so not true, Lawrence.
What does this all mean? In 1.5, a designer can change every little bit of html the system generates, the standard output however is still the same as in 1.0 to retain backwards compatibility with 1.0 site templates. This allows the creation of accessible, standard compliant, tableless, whatever-the-designer-thinks-is-important, websites.
We are currently trying to create a semantic site template that will act as a proof of concept to demonstrate how people can use the new features in 1.5. The goal is also to make this template an offical package. Template designers can then use it as the basis for their own accessible and standard compliant templates. The template will be fine-tuned based on feedback gathered from the community and the idea is to move it into the core for 2.0.
We will provide a solution capable of delivering accessible websites that comply with WCAG 1.0 Priority 2 and Section 508 requirements by release 1.5 of Joomla!
The Core Development Team focuses on front-end accessibility for the 1.x series of releases of Joomla!
Please note that while Joomla! will provide the ability to deliver WCAG compliant sites, many requirements depend on the template designers or content managers. As such, Joomla! sites may well not comply with WCAG, for reasons out of the control of the Core Development Team. In other words: “We’ll give you the tools to comply, the rest is up to you!”.
They say it will be capable for WAI AA..
AmyStephen wrote:# 1 - Untrue! This is not a core hack - it is an override. We are not modifying core delivered code to accomplish BEEZ.
I apologise for misunderstanding regarding the 'core hack'. I thought you were treating 'core hack' as the same thing as the template overrides. The real question is - should they be modifying core code (namely the frontend JS delivered by Johan) in order to make that JS a progressive enhancement / WAI AA capable ?
# 2 - There is no advancement in the mechanical tests because both
passed the mechanical tests.
AmyStephen wrote:# 3 - The "advancement" is simple - it's called "have it your way!" We are able to use template overrides to OVERRIDE the output, Lawrence! You can advance it how you want. This is not a difficult concept and I am certain you understand this.
So how do you override the captions.js file when it's part of the /includes directory, one of the limitations on further advancement in terms of mechanical accessibility testing to get to WAI AA, and as such, not part of the "template override" structure ? I have it on good authority from Andrew Eddie himself that the only things that can be overridden in 1.5 are the component architectures, not the includes.
Stick to the topic and quit pulling in other stuff. You are clouding a 508C / BEEZ tutorial discussion with unrelated information.
* Rule: 6.3.4 - When SCRIPT Elements are used, the NOSCRIPT element is required in the document.
o Warning - SCRIPT Element(s) are found in document and the NOSCRIPT element is not.
OK. So, it passes the mechanical test. Great. Thanks for saying that FINALLY!
'Cept the problem is it's "gaming" the system in order to get a pass mark on that mechanical test. If you cheat on a test to get a pass mark, is that fair ?
AmyStephen wrote:Here's what I see with BEEZ -- people working together cooperatively, contributing code and documentation, and delivering something to a community who NEEDS it.
I've contributed code, documentation, designs, architecture changes, support, discussions, ideas. I've collaborated with lots of people across the globe on various projects.
AmyStephen wrote:It's time for some reflection and soul searching and decisions, Lawrence. People can't be expected to stop their work, listen to your angry complaints, explain why they are carrying the rocks in the manner they are doing it, and keep the enthusiasm and passion needed to contribute. Especially considering they are not paid!
I'm not angry, Amy. You asked for an analysis and I've given it. The results of this analysis upsets the marketing / evangelism / upselling of Joomla! as Joomla! because the evidence within the analysis contradicts what is stated by the people who run the show.
Likewise, the design and analysis I've given here and elsewhere is unpaid. So there is more than one side to this story. I'm contributing as much as the next guy, the difference being what I've contributed shows where things need to change.. and not rely on marketing.
AmyStephen wrote:Joomla! is going to help make the world a *little* better place (already does!) and Joomla! v 1.5 is going to rock. I want to be a part of that. When you are ready to set aside your own interests and patiently collaborate with others, trusting that they, too, care about the community, then you'll be ready to start contributing, again. Be forewarned, though, when that time comes, we are going to use you up!
My own interests ?
I have been patiently collaborating with you. You wanted an analysis. You got the results. The results didn't exactly gel with what you and others have been evangelising for Joomla!.. and in that light, it's perfectly understandable and logical that you would respond to me the way you have. I'm okay with that.
I have evaluated the BEEZ template with the base Joomla! install and - I'll be tickled pink if that thing doesn't pass the standards. Good news for us, Lawrence!
You thought it passed because the mechanical test said it did. Yet that's not the point of the test. Accessibility is not aiming for 'compliance' so organisations can sign off on it, accessibility is aiming for meeting the needs of people. All I'm trying to do is educate you to the point that whatever is inside that mechanical test, is by and large, wrong if it says Joomla! passes the test. I don't want the friends and colleagues I have within the Joomla! community to misunderstand me on this point either.. which is why I'm wondering why we can't patch up this misunderstanding here and now.