Page 2 of 2

Re: SUMo accessibility self assessment - for comments

Posted: Mon Aug 26, 2019 3:52 pm
by scheff
  • Do you consider SUMo a complex product or not?
  • Do you want to split your accessibility report into several sub-reports or do you prefer to keep it in one report?
Your clarification for scoping is in violation of VPAT. This is another reason why you're currently not entitled to refer to VPAT in your current draft report as any (draft) report has to meet at least minimum requirements as of section Essential Requirements for Authors on pages 3-7 of the VPAT and as emphasiszed in the introduction on the last paragraph of page 2 of the VPAT by the service mark holders! So please update your draft report in order to comply the minimum requirements.

VPAT does allow to use additional information and sections. It also allows different report formats. And in section Best Practices for Authors, there is a sub-section Multiple Reports on page 9 raising the above questions. So while your scoping clarification is in violation of VPAT, it can be rendered into that direction in case of complex product structuring. VPAT doesn't allow scoping below product level. But VPAT allows sub-reports to address those components or functional areas below product level, implying at least cross-references and a reasoning in the mandatory notes section. It does not prescribe how to identify the overall report and its sub-reports. That choice is left to the authors of the accessibility report as long as they meet the minimum requirements of VPAT.

It seems to me that a significant part of SUMo user base is located in the US, the EU, Russia, China and Latin America. I don't remember if it was Brazil or some other Latin American country in focus. Since version 2.0 of VPAT, it does not only cover aspects for the US but also for the EU and for global web standards on accessibility. I don't know to which extent Russia, China and Latin America have also defined accessibility standards and for whom they're binding to which extent unto when. Perhaps there are readers of the forum located in some of those regions and may provide feedback with references or links to such standards, guidelines or criteria, hopefully also in an international version in English or French. Extending your draft report by such standards is possible and not conflicting with VPAT.

Re: SUMo accessibility self assessment - for comments

Posted: Mon Aug 26, 2019 4:14 pm
by scheff
If you want to follow the sub-report direction, I consider it appropriate to extent the title of the sub-reports with some identification within the title. I further consider it appropriate to include product name and version also in the title. So you may use sub-report instead of report in the corresponding sub-reports. And you may refer to SUMo client, SUMo forum, SUMo help, SUMo issues, SUMo Server, SUMo Online dashboard if you want to split into corresponding sub-reports. The choice is yours how to split and group if you want to split at all. And according to my interpretation it isn't a problem that these draft sub-reports are not published simultaneously. You've to cross-reference and name these sub-reports nevertheless in your drafts for compliance reasons even if the other sub-reports are not even published in draft revision yet. That may be different when it comes to switching of draft revision to final revision.

According to section Essential Requirements for Authors, the title section is followed by a VPAT Heading Information section according to requirement 4 on page 4 of VPAT. The VPAT calls it a heading. But in the example provided, it looks like a sub-title, see page 11 of VPAT. That seems more appropriate to me. The content of that section is fixed as VPAT® Version 2.3 (Revised), see page 10 and 11 of VPAT.
  • Which version of VPAT did you use for your draft report?
  • Why can't I find the identification of the template used?
  • Is my impression correct that this mandatory section is still missing in your draft report?
And don't confuse template with report. A VPAT may only be published by the service mark holders during the validity of the service mark. This validity is currently starting in the year 2007 and lasting unto the year 2027. As you aren't part of the service mark holder, you aren't authorized to publish a new and differing template. And if you're member of the service mark holders, you require common approval by the members before getting authorized. What you want to do is publish an accessibility report in compliance with the VPAT instead.

Re: SUMo accessibility self assessment - for comments

Posted: Mon Aug 26, 2019 4:36 pm
by Kyle_Katarn
Thanks !!! I'll analyse all this... and update my page accordingly :-)
I'll let you know when a better version gets avaialble for comments. Great feedback, as usual !

Re: SUMo accessibility self assessment - for comments

Posted: Mon Aug 26, 2019 4:59 pm
by scheff
VPAT requires the following ordered sections to follow report title and VPAT heading information:
  • Name of Product/Version
  • Product Description
  • Report Date
  • Contact Information
  • Notes
  • Evaluation Methods Used
  • Applicable Standards/Guidelines
  • Terms
  • Tables for Each Standard or Guideline
The first four sections are suitable as structured data as required by public administration procurements. Such a need is respected by VPAT. So a hidden table format sounds suitable. Such a markup isn't used in VPAT although made look like on page 11. For the remaining sections, I consider headings as appropriate. These sections seem to more voluminous and similarly less structured as already the product description.

In your draft report, you replaced the required section name Name of Product/Version by Software under seft-assessment. Beside the typo, I don't consider such a renaming covered by the service mark holders requirements and usage restrictions. I further don't consider it appropriate nor suitable. I further consider it violating the requirements of public procurement authorities which were motivating the establishment of VPAT to render their requirements more practical. You're duplicating the information in that section with the product description that SUMo is a mix of software and service. You're duplicating the information in that section with the evaluation methods section. So please rename it according to VPAT.

And the content of the section includes the correct information. Scoping information I don't consider appropriate in that section. Report title and notes section seem to me more appropriate for sub-report information. It may make sense to use an additional sub-title section for sub-report identification if desired.

I couldn't find neither the mandatory section name nor the section content of section Product Description. Where did you hide them?
I expect the declaration that SUMo is a software product and service here. You may report about its components and their state (mandatory, optional). Then you may include the link as well as the main content of your product page I don't consider it sufficient to include only the link as the content of that link may change with changing feature set while the feature set of the reported and assessed product version didn't change.

I couldn't find neither the mandatory section name nor section content of section Report Date. Where did you hide them?
And don't confuse report date with assessment dates. The report may evaluate several assessments of different dates. So the assessments have their dates and the report resp. sub-reports have their own dates. They may be identical or different. That's not a problem. I only could find an assessment date no report date yet.

I couldn't find neither the mandatory section name nor section content of report section Contact Information. Having a link in the disclaimer section doesn't remove the requirement to have such a section name and content in that order in the report itself. And as far as I can see, the link isn't appropriate as it refers to the contact page. Or can you tell me where on that contact page I find the nominee resp. representative for accessibility?

Re: SUMo accessibility self assessment - for comments

Posted: Mon Aug 26, 2019 5:40 pm
by scheff
VPAT declares the report section Notes mandatory while not requiring per se some content. If you make some choices as dropping irrelevant sections or splitting the report in sub-reports, it may no longer be left empty but has to provide corresponding information, i.e. reasoning that HW criteria are not applicable or cross-references for the sub-reports. Why can't I find that section?
Doesn't most of your disclaimer section belong to the notes section instead?

VPAT declares the report section Evaluation Methods Used mandatory. Why can't I find that section?
As mentioned previously on the current draft version of the product name section, you'll probably inform that you performed a self-assessment for establishing that report including assessment date. That belongs to this seemingly missing section. And I don't believe that this is the only method used. I got an email invitation to provide feedback. I first had to ask some questions to understand that invitation. But as you see, I provide feedback. The kind of feedback I provided is called review as far as I know. And I recommended that you contact and invite selected other people too. If they accept your invitation, then this will result in either further reviews, further (informal) assessments or both. VPAT doesn't require you to publish the assessments nor reviews. Nevertheless I strongly recommend you to record and save such external assessments especially by concerned people. That information and user feed back might be stronger and more valuable then any standard.

Do you know the Linux distributions Knoppix ( resp. ) and Adriane?
The author was the pioneer for Linux Live CDs and later DVDs. His distribution is very well known and stable with different derivatives created on his efforts. He married a visually impaired woman. This lead to the distribution Adriane. I don't know if it was necessary to create missing tools to get to this alternative distribution. As far as I know it was at least necessary to search for some needed and less well known tools as well as to adapt their configuration so that such people may have a working experience from the beginning after inserting the DVD for booting. What sense would it make to first configure something on the booted DVD in order to get the screen reader working if you don't know that boot has already finished and waits for user interactions and commands and if the booted system doesn't announce accoustically when it finished booting? People not concerned may either not detect such barriers or underestimate when such barriers become blocking.

Re: SUMo accessibility self assessment - for comments

Posted: Mon Aug 26, 2019 6:36 pm
by scheff
VPAT recommends to use a table to list the applicable standards used in the report. It takes into account those known to the service mark holders. In a previous post of this thread I asked if other people know corresponding standards to include, especially of China, Russia, eventually Brazil or Argentina. This section is mandatory. But VPAT names alternative forms and locations to provide the same information. These standards and guidelines are listes several times in VPAT, namely:
  • Revised Section 508 standards – the U.S. Federal accessibility standard, published by the U.S. Access Board in the Federal Register on January 18, 2017 and corrected on January 22, 2018
  • Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 or WCAG 2.0 (ISO/IEC 40500)
  • Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.1 or WCAG 2.1
  • EN 301 549 Accessibility requirements suitable for public procurement of ICT products and services in Europe, V2.1.2 (2018-08)
I found your quoting of these standards at the beginning of your report and of this thread incomplete, resulting in understanding difficulties. With your supply of some (indirect) reference, I found direct and official reference and have posted the URL of VPAT.

VPAT then requires a section names Terms. It provides even a proposal of its content on page 12.

Finally, VPAT recommends a final Disclaimer section. That section is optional as it is not included in the minimum requirements. Nevertheless it is given in best practices section on page 8 and in the template itself on page 87.

The same applies for an optional column Remarks and Explanations. You'll find it in best practices section on pages 7-8 and integrated in the VPAT tables for the applicable standards.

Concering the VPAT tables for the applicable standards, their column names are given as
  • Criteria
  • Conformance Level
  • Remarks and Explanations
There are NO column names Supporting Features nor Comment. If you take a look at the examples provided in your Wikipedia reference, then it seems that revisions of VPAT prior to 2.0 had such column names as seen on those dates. But Wikipedia doesn't use only outdated examples. All but two examples seem to be prior to revision 2.0. The example of Appian uses revision 2.1 and comes closest to actual VPAT revision 2.3. The example of GitHub doesn't follow as good and has missing some mandatory sections like report date and VPAT revision. All the other examples are too old. So why did you pickup those outdated examples instead of the current reference which has been published and released almost four months before your first assessment?

Re: SUMo accessibility self assessment - for comments

Posted: Mon Aug 26, 2019 9:02 pm
by Kyle_Katarn
Thanks for these comments

I've implemented some comments already :

FYI, i've used the criteria which are currently used by major IT actors (Apple,...), not the latest Section 508 are referred by VPAT 2.3. This will be improved at a later point in time.

Do you think hat having a dedicated "Accessibility Report" section in Mantis to have a tracking of comments & issues would make sense ?

Re: SUMo accessibility self assessment - for comments

Posted: Sat Sep 07, 2019 9:50 am
by scheff
Kyle_Katarn wrote:
Mon Aug 26, 2019 9:02 pm
Do you think hat having a dedicated "Accessibility Report" section in Mantis to have a tracking of comments & issues would make sense ?
Yes, I do.

And what do you mean by section in Mantis?

I think it best if dedicated does not imply only segregated. I'm in favor to have a view purely on accessibility regardless of product, and to have accessibility issues remaining integrated into the product view. So for configuring such a mode at least some configuration on tagging in Mantis is needed. Don't know if configuring Mantis project additionally would complicate these modes as accessibility isn't a product but belongs to one or more products. In database design, it wouldn't be a separate table but a database view instead.

Re: SUMo accessibility self assessment - for comments

Posted: Sat Sep 07, 2019 11:04 am
by Kyle_Katarn
Then, using a standard "Accessibility" tag may be the most straightforward solution.

Re: SUMo accessibility self assessment - for comments

Posted: Sat Sep 07, 2019 3:31 pm
by Kyle_Katarn
Accessibility report updated in order to reflect improvements from 5.9.8