openacr
openacr copied to clipboard
GSA
Create wireframe for Comparison Tool
When comparing different ACR, what do we want to highlight? How do we want that information to be presented? Will it be the YAML file, the Markdown or HTML that would be easiest to review?
I think initially we were looking for something like the output that https://www.diffchecker.com/diff provides.
Also related - https://github.com/GSA/open-product-accessibility-template/issues/69
Ideally, we are diffing the YAML file but also contextually we are providing diffing the output of markdown or HTML (by user choice). I like how GitHub does 'rich diff' of the text so I would try that if possible. Example screenshot:
I am taking the liberty to share my unsolicited perspective as someone who is very enthusiastic about this work, but concerned that I lack the time and expertise to actively contribute.
I recommend that you explore if it is not too much work to allow both views for comparison.
I don't think the average 508 program manager can be expected to make much sense of a GitHub style PR diff view.
That said, the early adopters will be GitHub users, so that sort of data view is fine for that audience. Also, anyone manually troubleshooting the importing of MS ACRs (from VPAT) will appreciate the availability of a traditional diff presentation.
So I think any diff presentation first but knowing that an option for a GitHub style document-like 'rich diff' needs to be part of the beta launch.
Thanks for the feedback @bruce-usab. Agreed with your points. Hopefully, we can bug you for feedback on the tool once we have it ready for that review.
What if the comparison were just in a single window like this:
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<frameset cols="*,*,*">
<frame title="Plone" src="Plone-5.html">
<frame title="Drupal" src="drupal-9.html">
<frame title="Moodle" src="Moodle-3.html">
</frameset>
</html>
We could add some JavaScript to start to highlight things where there are differences between them.
Possibly highlight
- the oldest OPAT
- places where information is missing
- using red, yellow, green (along with symbols) to indicate supports, partially-supports and does-not-support
We could actually aggregate some findings between OPATs that are involved. Help prepare material that might be the basis for a "best meets" accessibility documentation.
Ideally you could lock the view so that as you scroll up/down one, the others jump along between the appropriate sections.
- Note I edited the HTML in the screenshot to reflect problems that don't actually exist.
Have a very basic model of this up and running now on the draft website - [EDIT: URL Updated to use Githack]
Any comparison should focus on supporting procurement officers to have a better understanding of the context. Simply having more or less errors in an ACR is insufficient to determine if a product is more or less accessible for a given project. Comparisons can prompt officers to look for manual testing or ask the vendor to provide more context.