[Governance][Agreement] Add Accessibility as Forgejo value #179

fsologureng · 2023-02-27T23:45:03+01:00

fsologureng commented

2023-02-27 23:45:03 +01:00

The Forgejo initiative has publicly declared interest in develops a software forge with accessibility concerns, among other features.

Under this premise I propose to add Accessibility as a core value of the initiative:

All Forgejo developments will be made considering the ability
to access of people with disabilities or functional impairment as a condition of
equality of opportunities and inclusion, understanding Accessibility as the
quality of being able to access with assistive technology.

Please feel free to comment, improve, suggest, object or approve this proposal taking into account your own concerns or level of agreement.

The Forgejo initiative has publicly declared interest in develops a software forge with accessibility concerns, among other features. Under this premise I propose to add Accessibility as a core value of the initiative: *All Forgejo developments will be made considering the ability to access of people with disabilities or functional impairment as a condition of equality of opportunities and inclusion, understanding Accessibility as the quality of being able to access with assistive technology.* Please feel free to comment, improve, suggest, object or approve this proposal taking into account your own concerns or level of agreement.

fsologureng changed title from ~~Add Accessibility as Forgejo value~~ to [Governance][Agreement] Add Accessibility as Forgejo value

2023-02-27 23:59:40 +01:00

fsologureng added the

Governance

Accessibility

Agreement proposal

labels

2023-02-28 00:00:50 +01:00

fsologureng referenced this pull request

2023-02-28 00:02:38 +01:00

Privacy and accessibility values in MISSION.md #162

earl-warren approved these changes

2023-02-28 00:03:45 +01:00

Ryuno-Ki commented

2023-02-28 09:31:29 +01:00

I'm very much in favour of this proposal. As it stands right now, you are the only member of the accessibility team.

My reading is that you would have to have a say in every change.

Before I can agree, I'd like to get a rough estimate how confident contributors are in developing with accessibility in mind.

I'm very much in favour of this proposal. As it stands right now, [you are the only member of the accessibility team](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/meta/src/branch/readme/TEAMS.md#accessibility). My reading is that you would have to have a say in every change. Before I can agree, I'd like to get a rough estimate how confident contributors are in developing with accessibility in mind.

circlebuilder requested changes

2023-02-28 12:33:07 +01:00

MISSION.md Outdated

					
				@ -79,0 +79,4 @@

				3. **Accessibility**: All Forgejo developments will be made considering the ability

				   to access of people with disabilities or functional impairment as a condition of

				   equality of opportunities and inclusion, understanding Accessibility as the

				   quality of being able to access with assistive technology.

I think the last part of the sentence coould be omitted, as for instance there are also color schemes that aren't directly related to assistive technology. Also the part "as a condition of" makes the sentence a bit hard to parse imho. Maybe it might read as:

Accessibility: All Forgejo developments will be made considering the ability
to access of people with disabilities or functional impairment and in the spirit of
equality of opportunities and inclusion.

I think the last part of the sentence coould be omitted, as for instance there are also color schemes that aren't directly related to assistive technology. Also the part "as a condition of" makes the sentence a bit hard to parse imho. Maybe it might read as: > 3. **Accessibility**: All Forgejo developments will be made considering the ability to access of people with disabilities or functional impairment and in the spirit of equality of opportunities and inclusion.

I agree with you. I overlooked that difference. I will do a fix with your suggestion.

fsologureng marked this conversation as resolved

circlebuilder commented

2023-02-28 12:37:37 +01:00

@Ryuno-Ki: Before I can agree, I'd like to get a rough estimate how confident contributors are in developing with accessibility in mind.

Without going too much OT I feel that Accessibility should safeguard a11y, which includes checking compliance of the work that is done and identifying improvements.

But imho an important part of the task is to be an 'Accessibility Stimulator' whereby attention for a11y is a natural thing that any project member is expected to take into account. Stimulator gently points that out, when it is at risk to be overlooked.

And if we adopt standardized compliance level and as part of the agile development process there could be an item in the "Definition of Done" checklist of an issue, asking "Did you take Accessiblity into account in your work?".

PS. I also think this should lighten the work of the Accessibity team. They are not responsible to develop the accessibity.

> @Ryuno-Ki: Before I can agree, I'd like to get a rough estimate how confident contributors are in developing with accessibility in mind. Without going too much OT I feel that Accessibility should safeguard a11y, which includes checking compliance of the work that is done and identifying improvements. But imho an important part of the task is to be an 'Accessibility Stimulator' whereby attention for a11y is a natural thing that any project member is expected to take into account. Stimulator gently points that out, when it is at risk to be overlooked. And if we adopt standardized compliance level and as part of the agile development process there could be an item in the "Definition of Done" checklist of an issue, asking "Did you take Accessiblity into account in your work?". PS. I also think this should lighten the work of the Accessibity team. They are not responsible to _develop_ the accessibity.

👍 3

Ryuno-Ki commented

2023-02-28 20:50:14 +01:00

@Ryuno-Ki: Before I can agree, I'd like to get a rough estimate how confident contributors are in developing with accessibility in mind.

Without going too much OT I feel that Accessibility should safeguard a11y, which includes checking compliance of the work that is done and identifying improvements.

Allow me to cite an accessibility consultant

I focus on outcomes for users, not conformance. I focus on empowering teams, not setting up recurring monthly fees. I focus on making organizations self-sustaining, not helping them avoid lawsuits.

> > @Ryuno-Ki: Before I can agree, I'd like to get a rough estimate how confident contributors are in developing with accessibility in mind. > > Without going too much OT I feel that Accessibility should safeguard a11y, which includes checking compliance of the work that is done and identifying improvements. Allow me to [cite an accessibility consultant](https://adrianroselli.com/2023/02/audioeye-will-get-you-sued.html) > I focus on outcomes for users, not conformance. I focus on empowering teams, not setting up recurring monthly fees. I focus on making organizations self-sustaining, not helping them avoid lawsuits.

fsologureng commented

2023-02-28 21:01:28 +01:00

I'm very much in favour of this proposal. As it stands right now, you are the only member of the accessibility team.

What is the relevance that I am the only member? I don't get it.

My reading is that you would have to have a say in every change.

Well, my effort will be absolutely insufficient if there are no disposition to address this need or without disposition to collaborate with knowledge in this huge task, considering the accessibility grade of code.

Before I can agree, I'd like to get a rough estimate how confident contributors are in developing with accessibility in mind.

Me too. That's why I opened the PR.

> I'm very much in favour of this proposal. As it stands right now, [you are the only member of the accessibility team](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/meta/src/branch/readme/TEAMS.md#accessibility). What is the relevance that I am the only member? I don't get it. > > My reading is that you would have to have a say in every change. Well, my effort will be absolutely insufficient if there are no disposition to address this need or without disposition to collaborate with knowledge in this huge task, considering the accessibility grade of code. > > Before I can agree, I'd like to get a rough estimate how confident contributors are in developing with accessibility in mind. Me too. That's why I opened the PR.

Ryuno-Ki commented

2023-02-28 21:03:46 +01:00

I'm very much in favour of this proposal. As it stands right now, you are the only member of the accessibility team.

What is the relevance that I am the only member? I don't get it.

If you would have veto power (as I was not sure about) that would imply that you would become a bottleneck.

My reading is that you would have to have a say in every change.

Well, my effort will be absolutely insufficient if there are no disposition to address this need or without disposition to collaborate with knowledge in this huge task, considering the accessibility grade of code.

I agree. You're facing an uphill battle :-(

Before I can agree, I'd like to get a rough estimate how confident contributors are in developing with accessibility in mind.

Me too. That's why I opened the PR.

We're on the same side, then!

> > I'm very much in favour of this proposal. As it stands right now, [you are the only member of the accessibility team](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/meta/src/branch/readme/TEAMS.md#accessibility). > > What is the relevance that I am the only member? I don't get it. If you would have veto power (as I was not sure about) that would imply that you would become a bottleneck. > > My reading is that you would have to have a say in every change. > > Well, my effort will be absolutely insufficient if there are no disposition to address this need or without disposition to collaborate with knowledge in this huge task, considering the accessibility grade of code. I agree. You're facing an uphill battle :-( > > Before I can agree, I'd like to get a rough estimate how confident contributors are in developing with accessibility in mind. > > Me too. That's why I opened the PR. We're on the same side, then!

fsologureng commented

2023-02-28 22:36:50 +01:00

If you would have veto power (as I was not sure about) that would imply that you would become a bottleneck.

Have you seen anyone in Forgejo willing to let me make a veto? 😆 No one is going to stop doing things no matter how much intention I put into it. It's not my idea, either. It's much closer to @circlebuilder's idea, but probably with a stronger intervention using good words. Either way, without willingness of other members it's totally useless and a waste of time.

For example, accessibility (or UI/UX) concerns has typical responses (no personal questioning, it is just as a general example) when issues arise: They simply choose to delay it to an unknown date or to foist the responsibility of the fix on you or someone else. The result is a lack of improvement or, worse, regression. Because both UX/UI and a11y need a global vision, not a "I'm in a hurry" or "it's not my problem, someone else will fix it", or "Accessibility is not a priority just an enhancement" kind of approach.

Accessibility should be part of the design from the beginning ("Your design is not done if you haven't considered the people who need to use it. It's just not done."), like security and privacy, not as a half-baked fix done too late. Based on the fact that we are a soft-fork, the amount of design done here is not much at the moment, but the amount of legacy bugs is huge. Please see this new Scoped Labels feature, do you think visual aid is a design criterion with accessibility concerns? The criteria is "because look's cool". We're gaining another big problem to fix in this area.

If we could come to a general agreement internally that new designs integrate accessibility concerns from the start, perhaps we could improve accessibility and free people with functional impairments from GitHub. Otherwise, the solution will persist for the privileged ones able to free themselves, which is an elite, and I'm not just talking about people well-sighted, but developers with the skills to find a button that who knows where it is.

> If you would have veto power (as I was not sure about) that would imply that you would become a bottleneck. Have you seen anyone in Forgejo willing to let me make a veto? 😆 No one is going to stop doing things no matter how much intention I put into it. It's not my idea, either. It's much closer to @circlebuilder's idea, but probably with a stronger intervention using good words. Either way, without willingness of other members it's totally useless and a waste of time. For example, accessibility (or UI/UX) concerns has typical responses (no personal questioning, it is just as a general example) when issues arise: They simply choose to delay it to an unknown date or to foist the responsibility of the fix on you or someone else. The result is a lack of improvement or, worse, regression. Because both UX/UI and a11y need a global vision, not a "I'm in a hurry" or "it's not my problem, someone else will fix it", or "Accessibility is not a priority just an enhancement" kind of approach. Accessibility should be part of the design from the beginning (["Your design is not done if you haven't considered the people who need to use it. It's just not done."](https://www.buzzsprout.com/719037/11903986)), like security and privacy, not as a half-baked fix done too late. Based on the fact that we are a soft-fork, the amount of design done here is not much at the moment, but the amount of legacy bugs is huge. Please see [this new Scoped Labels feature](https://codeberg.org/earl-warren/forgejo/src/branch/wip-1.19-release-notes-label/RELEASE-NOTES.md#scoped-labels-https-codeberg-org-forgejo-forgejo-commit-6221a6fd5), do you think *visual aid* is a design criterion with accessibility concerns? The criteria is "because look's cool". We're gaining another big problem to fix in this area. If we could come to a general agreement internally that **new designs** integrate accessibility concerns from the start, perhaps we could improve accessibility and free people with functional impairments from GitHub. Otherwise, the solution will persist for the privileged ones able to free themselves, which is an elite, and I'm not just talking about people well-sighted, but developers with the skills to find a button that who knows where it is.

Ryuno-Ki approved these changes

2023-03-01 08:55:06 +01:00

circlebuilder commented

2023-03-01 09:39:32 +01:00

They simply choose to delay it to an unknown date or to foist the responsibility of the fix on you or someone else.

That is where a "Definition of Done" may help. Your PR won't be merged, because the work isn't "Done" when Accessibility isn't tackled.

> They simply choose to delay it to an unknown date or to foist the responsibility of the fix on you or someone else. That is where a "Definition of Done" may help. Your PR won't be merged, because the work isn't "Done" when Accessibility isn't tackled.

❤️ 1

circlebuilder approved these changes

2023-03-01 09:39:52 +01:00

Ghost referenced this pull request from forgejo/governance

2023-03-02 10:06:06 +01:00

[Governance][Agreement] Add Accessibility as Forgejo value #6

fsologureng force-pushed a11y-as-value from 44ed4ec1f5 to 8f742ff155

2023-03-03 14:04:01 +01:00

Compare

earl-warren commented

2023-03-15 18:03:15 +01:00

First-time contributor