WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: ACR Best Practices

for

From: Steve Green
Date: Dec 18, 2019 11:06AM

As an external supplier of accessibility services our approach is likely to be different from internal teams. The level of detail we write for "supports" in VPATs depends on how many hours the client is paying for. Given unlimited time, you could write a huge amount for each success criterion.

There is an excellent example at https://www.d2l.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/D2L-Brightspace-CORE-10.8.x-VPAT%C2%AE2.2-August-2018-1.pdf. I can't imagine how long it took to write that, but it will have been more than a few hours (maybe a couple of days) and it has clearly been given serious thought by someone who had thorough technical knowledge of the site and its coding.

Steve Green
Managing Director
Test Partners Ltd


-----Original Message-----
From: WebAIM-Forum < <EMAIL REMOVED> > On Behalf Of glen walker
Sent: 18 December 2019 17:50
To: WebAIM Discussion List < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] ACR Best Practices

I've never given details when I specify "supports" in the VPAT/ACR other than saying something like "Instructions do not rely solely on sensory characteristics" (for 1.3.3).

For "partially supports" or "does not support", I give specific examples of what causes it to not support.

It sounds like you are being asked to give specific examples of supports?
I suppose for the 1.3.3 example, you'd have to find instructions on some page, such as "all (*) fields are required". Those are instructions that don't have sensory characteristics.

Perhaps that's all you need, a couple examples that work, such as proper use of headings, tables, and lists for 1.3.1 or properly labeled form elements for 4.1.2, etc.