Timeline for Introducing an accessibility dashboard and some upcoming changes to display links
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 9 at 8:02 | history | edited | ꓢPArcheon | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added one more example, thanks to the company for providing yet another one so fast.
|
| Aug 8 at 8:38 | comment | added | ꓢPArcheon | @SpencerG this is also why I sarcastically asked if the score was just something to brag about at the next public speech the company will give. For users of the site, it isn't that informative that the network has reached 98.48928582498673% while yesterday it was still at 98.48928582498672% - that would work better to impress some "out-of-the-game" viewers. So... thanks for letting us know the tool exists and thanks for the transparency but I don't see myself checking the score too often. | |
| Aug 8 at 8:34 | comment | added | ꓢPArcheon | @SpencerG probably the length of the message diluted the intended meaning. This is not contesting the use of automated checks (yet I suggest you have a look at wizzwizz4 suggestions). What I am pointing out is that I feel the focus should be on the users feedback, not a percentage score. It is pretty cool you have a tool that helps you catch repeated mistakes as you work your way in learning accessibility by design, but.. that isn't exactly something that I would consider a selling point for the site. So, nice you know you have that but as an user the number itself is a little plain to me. | |
| Aug 7 at 20:38 | comment | added | SpencerG StaffMod | To be frank, and in my mind, something that is not quite related to this dashboard, we need to be better at positioning accessibility needs with our communications and requests for feedback on specific initiatives. So that those needs are more obvious to the community as parameters we need to keep in mind. Of course that ultimately falls on us. I would like to think we are making improvements in getting feedback at the right time and alleviating those issues, but obviously, it's still a work in progress. | |
| Aug 7 at 20:33 | comment | added | SpencerG StaffMod | That being said, community sentiment doesn't go into accessibility scoring. That's a separate thing entirely; ideally, we put something out like the vote buttons, that is, a liked design that meets both user expectations and acceptable levels of accessibility adherence. However, we know that obviously isn't always the case. The problem you point out is really a larger one that can't exclusively be solved by accessibility scoring by automated or manual testing and instead is how we are making changes and including the community to provide feedback. | |
| Aug 7 at 20:31 | comment | added | SpencerG StaffMod | We don't rely exclusively on automatic metrics. The dashboard itself is an average of automatic and manually weighted metrics. The manually weighted ones come from internally flagged issues that need improving that are not on pages that are included in the automated testing. | |
| Aug 7 at 18:12 | comment | added | ꓢPArcheon | @VLAZ as I said, I undid their changes soon after they were made, so I kinda lost track about other refinements along the way. | |
| Aug 7 at 18:06 | comment | added | VLAZ | @SPArcheon-onstrike also, amusingly, now the buttons are less sharp. I can't remember the exact change that brought it but I think one of the colour updates. When there is more light in the room (and on my monitors) it's getting hard to see the circle. Some times it's downright impossible and literally only the tiny triangle is visible. | |
| Aug 7 at 18:03 | comment | added | ꓢPArcheon | @zcoop98 see the linked second post there. The original design that was implemented in the announcement greatly reduced the readability of the votes - at least on some sites. I think they did improve the design a little after that, but the improvements were still based on their view instead of just listening to people. Alas another reasons I like the original buttons more is because they were smaller. | |
| Aug 7 at 17:57 | comment | added | zcoop98 | I definitely agree with the overall sentiment; metrics are useful until [they aren't anymore](en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart's_law). I still don't completely understand the hubbub over the voting buttons though, and I'm not sure it's the best example here; I don't want to discount folks' honest reactions, but it seemed to me to be much more about "change is bad" than material criticisms– once the initial problems were largely addressed, that is. The community response to change can just be misguided sometimes, and we're often a stubborn bunch. That said, the tag emboldening is pretty bad. | |
| Aug 7 at 17:48 | comment | added | VLAZ | @Joachim "but obviously don't visit a site with human sensibilities." Ah, so on-par with SE employees, then. | |
| Aug 7 at 17:47 | comment | added | Joachim | This would have been my follow-up question to the ones asked in the comments as well, if those automated metrics indeed only find code-related accessibility issues, but obviously don't visit a site with human sensibilities. | |
| Aug 7 at 17:45 | history | edited | Joachim | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
improved spelling
|
| Aug 7 at 16:49 | history | edited | ꓢPArcheon | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 212 characters in body
|
| Aug 7 at 16:39 | history | answered | ꓢPArcheon | CC BY-SA 4.0 |