Galette

Johan Cwiklinski a écrit :

Someone on Discord has complained about some accessibility points on 1.0.0.

He talked about contrast, and yes, it was probably better in 0.9.x series.

After running few tests with Firefox's accessibility tool, here are some elements that do not satisfy the minimum contrast requirements (WCAG level AA ; level required in France) :

• links with the default color (blue) when the background is not white,
• colored buttons hovered or focused
• links in the footer
• yellow icon link actions (ex. filter contributions from the members' list)

Do you think it is necessary to satisfy the level above (WCAG level AAA) ?
And in this case, by default, or by adding a way to increase contrast per user ?

Guillaume AGNIERAY a écrit (#note-1):

Do you think it is necessary to satisfy the level above (WCAG level AAA) ?

No, not for 1.0.0 at least; it has to be released, and this has been reported a bit too late unfortunately. We can tend to improve of course, but globally previous releases were not respecting any of accessibility standards.

And in this case, by default, or by adding a way to increase contrast per user ?

I've think about that, and IMHO it's better to have a "high contrast" CSS that can be enabled per user (like the dark theme). Doing that, we can focus on design for the standard version, and have a real high contrast focused alternative, which really focuses on accessibility. Of course, we can try to make our best for the standard design to be accessible, but I'm afraid we'll face situations where we'll have to make choices that won't be the best for non of those two points.

I've asked the user to test the darkreader extension, and tell us if their options may help with his issues; I did not have feedback yet. The idea was to adjust dark theme options; but I having high contrast would still be an interesting option, since dark theme may apply on this aswell.

Unfortunately, I did not know anyone that can help answering those questions; maybe will I ask on mailing list and social networks to have feedbacks about accessibility.

Someone on discord also tell em the dropdown button on member edition is "hard" to hit.

I should have create a new ticket for that one but it's also relative to accessibility

Johan Cwiklinski a écrit :

«mettre des colonnes côté à côte (pour la tableau de bord et les infos de galette) est perturbant quand on a pas de vision périphérique»

But that seems a minor issue since that concerns only the dashboard.

It is moreover impossible to address every disability :(

IMHO it's better to have a "high contrast" CSS that can be enabled per user (like the dark theme). Doing that, we can focus on design for the standard version, and have a real high contrast focused alternative, which really focuses on accessibility. Of course, we can try to make our best for the standard design to be accessible, but I'm afraid we'll face situations where we'll have to make choices that won't be the best for non of those two points.

I agree on that point. But constrast is obviously not the only issue. Other points will have to be improved in the templates (alternative texts, HTML structure, form labels, aria attributes, javascript accessibility...).

Someone on discord also tell em the dropdown button on member edition is "hard" to hit.

You mean the combo dropdown ?
Would it be enough to give the dropdown button a different color to make it more visible and so easier to hit ?

Guillaume AGNIERAY a écrit (#note-4):

Johan Cwiklinski a écrit :

«mettre des colonnes côté à côte (pour la tableau de bord et les infos de galette) est perturbant quand on a pas de vision périphérique»

But that seems a minor issue since that concerns only the dashboard.

It is moreover impossible to address every disability :(

Indeed ;)

IMHO it's better to have a "high contrast" CSS that can be enabled per user (like the dark theme). Doing that, we can focus on design for the standard version, and have a real high contrast focused alternative, which really focuses on accessibility. Of course, we can try to make our best for the standard design to be accessible, but I'm afraid we'll face situations where we'll have to make choices that won't be the best for non of those two points.

I agree on that point. But constrast is obviously not the only issue. Other points will have to be improved in the templates (alternative texts, HTML structure, form labels, aria attributes, javascript accessibility...).

For sure, I have in mind that's a huge job (that's also why it won't be done for 1.0.0).

Someone on discord also tell em the dropdown button on member edition is "hard" to hit.

You mean the combo dropdown ?

Yes, I think.

Would it be enough to give the dropdown button a different color to make it more visible and so easier to hit ?

Well, as far as I understood, that' was more about the size of th element.

I've just mention that here so we know about users feedback; but I'm pretty sure there are many other issues that are way more important to solve on accessibility.

Unfortunately, testing with browsers and specific tools does not have the same value as a real test from someone that really need accessibility to be improved. After 1.0 release, I'll make posts on social networks/websitre to have feedbacks, and we'll see.