About Section: Add a page about contributing and APG TF membership

[mcking65]

Resolve #2706 by adding a page to the about section about contributing.

Preview links

• Preview revised about page
• Preview new contributing page

---

WAI Preview Link (Last built on Mon, 02 Oct 2023 19:57:43 GMT).

[css-meeting-bot]

The ARIA Authoring Practices (APG) Task Force just discussed New contributing page.

The full IRC log of that discussion

<jugglinmike> Topic: New contributing page
<jugglinmike> github: https://github.com//pull/2734
<jugglinmike> Matt_King: I have this patch in draft. The agenda has a link to the preview
<jugglinmike> Matt_King: I'm looking for someone else to take a look and giving feedback on whether it includes everything we want
<jugglinmike> jongund: I can take a look
<jugglinmike> Matt_King: This was in response to an issue that jongund raised
<jugglinmike> Matt_King: I copied content from the home page and cleaned it up a little bit (making it more appropriate for this kind of page
<jugglinmike> s/page/page)/
<jugglinmike> Matt_King: Ideally, it would be the kind of page that points readers to other pages that are helpful when they're getting started
<jugglinmike> Jem: I was thinking about adding content about "why people should contribute" because right now, it's mostly about the mechanical aspects of contribution
<jugglinmike> Matt_King: Well, the top of the page has a very brief statement along those lines
<jugglinmike> Matt_King: If we wanted more and if we wanted to stay true to this style of document, I think that opening statement could include a link--something like "learn more about why contributing to the APG is important..."
<jugglinmike> Matt_King: So there's a draft pull request; feel free to add commits. I'm happy to co-author content

[css-meeting-bot]

The ARIA Authoring Practices (APG) Task Force just discussed New contributing page is ready for final review.

The full IRC log of that discussion

<jugglinmike> Topic: New contributing page is ready for final review
<jugglinmike> github: https://github.com//pull/2734
<jugglinmike> Matt_King: This was an issue that jongund raised and that we've been collaborating on
<jugglinmike> Matt_King: I recently changed it from "draft" to "Ready for review"
<jugglinmike> Matt_King: It's purely editorial
<jugglinmike> Jem: I'd like to review
<jugglinmike> dmontalvo: I'd like to take a look, too
<jugglinmike> Matt_King: It links to a WAI page about joining the Task Force
<Jem> https://deploy-preview-236--aria-practices.netlify.app/aria/apg/about/contributing/
<jugglinmike> Matt_King: Ideally, I would like to merge this in time for next week's publication. It's a pretty simple page
<jugglinmike> Matt_King: The primary change that I made was to the organization of the information
<Jem> https://deploy-preview-236--aria-practices.netlify.app/aria/apg/about/
<jugglinmike> Matt_King: I have a brief introduction that gives people a sense of what's on the page
<jugglinmike> Matt_King: Then, each of the sections after that are about how you do a different task
<jugglinmike> Matt_King: They're ordered in increasing levels of commitment, with the final section about joining the working group
<jugglinmike> Matt_King: The "readme" link is under the section titled "Making improvements to documentation or code"
<Jem> https://deploy-preview-236--aria-practices.netlify.app/aria/apg/about/contributing/
<jugglinmike> Matt_King: I pulled some of the content from the readme into this section in order to give a high-level overview of the process
<jugglinmike> Matt_King: I don't know if we will leave that content in the README. It doesn't hurt to have it in both places, but then again, maintenance is kind of a hassle
<jugglinmike> Jem: We had a question about how the APG workflow works. Should we give an overview for people who are trying to contribute?
<jugglinmike> Matt_King: Yes, but I think that goes in a different place. I think we need to extend the README with some information about how the repositories are structured and the process for checking your work
<Jem> https://github.com//issues/2781
<jugglinmike> Andrea_Cardona: I'd like to review, as well
<jugglinmike> Matt_King: This page is all about, "if you're just getting started, here's where you find out where to go"
<Jem> https://github.com/w3c/aria-practices
<jugglinmike> siri: So you're just looking for feedback on text rather than accessibility issues?
<jugglinmike> Matt_King: It's really just copy, so if there are accessibility issues, they will likely pre-date the patch and extend across the entire site

[shirsha]

Please add "Back to top" a landmark role. Discussed in the apg meeting and this will be deleted as it is part of template

The "W3C Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)" visually look as heading but not marked up as such

[daniel-montalvo]

Thanks for putting all of this together. Minor editorial suggestions.

I would focus mainly on the ids with text to lowercase and hyphenated, for consistency and better predictability of anchor links. I may have skipped some of these

[andreancardona]

Other than Daniel's comments looks good to me!

[mcking65]

@shirsha wrote:

Please add "Back to top" a landmark role. Discussed in the apg meeting and this will be deleted as it is part of template

I don't know if it will be deleted; I would like it to be deleted. However, I don't know if there is a template issue open about it. That'd take a bit of searching.

The "W3C Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)" visually look as heading but not marked up as such

The styling might make it appear to be a heading, but semantically it does not serve as a heading. It is just a prominent link in the banner. It is really important to only use heading elements where the element is semantically serving the purpose of a heading, not just styled in a way that is similar to a heading.

[mcking65]

@daniel-montalvo

A quick note on capitalization of the term "task force" since it came up in your review.

I have capitalized the term when it is a proper noun and used lowercase otherwise. That is, when writing out the full name "ARIA Authoring Practices Task Force", the words "Task" and "Force" are capitalized. If the words "task force" appear separate from the full name of the task force, they are not capitalized. I am fairly confident this is consistent with the Chicago manual of style referenced by the editorial guidelines. If there is something else I should consider, please let me know.

[daniel-montalvo]

@daniel-montalvo

A quick note on capitalization of the term "task force" since it came up in your review.

I have capitalized the term when it is a proper noun and used lowercase otherwise. That is, when writing out the full name "ARIA Authoring Practices Task Force", the words "Task" and "Force" are capitalized. If the words "task force" appear separate from the full name of the task force, they are not capitalized. I am fairly confident this is consistent with the Chicago manual of style referenced by the editorial guidelines. If there is something else I should consider, please let me know.

I'm OK as long as we are consistent. What you suggest seems consistent to me.

[daniel-montalvo]

Approving from an editorial perspective. Note that link-checker still flags a broken link on contributing.html line 69

[a11ydoer]

In New contributing page, "sending email to APG public mailing list" has two unnecessary slashes, "mailto://public-aria-practices@w3.org" and we can update that in a correct form.

[a11ydoer]

mailto code should remove two slashes, "//" in front of mailing address.

[a11ydoer]

I fixed mailto code and directly commited the change to speed up the publication. Please let me know if you prefer to creat PR instead despite that this is a minor update, @mcking65

[mcking65]

Thank you @a11ydoer for catching that. BTW, the links work with the slashes, at least in Chrome, but they shouldn't be there.

I fixed mailto code and directly commited the change to speed up the publication.

There were two; I fixed the other.

Please let me know if you prefer to creat PR instead despite that this is a minor update, @mcking65

Definitely not a PR for minor changes. Using the suggestions feature in a review is the most straightforward way to add code and ensure everyone is aligned, but for something like this where there is no question about it, pushing a commit is fine.

[mcking65]

Thank you @a11ydoer and @daniel-montalvo! @howard-e has updated the link-checker in #2812, and I'm just waiting on a review from @alflennik on that. Then, if all is good, I will merge the link-checker changes. Then, the tests on this should all be passing, and I will merge it.

[a11ydoer]

Thank you @a11ydoer for catching that. BTW, the links work with the slashes, at least in Chrome, but they shouldn't be there.

I fixed mailto code and directly commited the change to speed up the publication.

There were two; I fixed the other.

Please let me know if you prefer to creat PR instead despite that this is a minor update, @mcking65

Definitely not a PR for minor changes. Using the suggestions feature in a review is the most straightforward way to add code and ensure everyone is aligned, but for something like this where there is no question about it, pushing a commit is fine.

Thanks for fixing the error and your feedback about using "suggestions feature"
btw, I tested sending the email with two slashes and outlook reported me the error.

[shirsha]

Thanks, Matt !!. Changed changes are reviewed