 Hi, I'm Jun Pataleta from Moodle HQ. And today I would like to give an update about our journey to on the road to a more accessible Moodle. So just a week of three years ago, we kicked off the accessibility audit project for Moodle LMS. That time we were developing 3.9. And the way we did the audit is having 20 very representative pages in Moodle. And then accessibility testing was performed on these pages involving automated and manual testing. And the manual testers are people with different disabilities, like visual impairments and mobility impairments. And there were like 49 issues raised from this audit that we fixed in the Epic MDL 688. And on July, during the Moodle Global 2020, I presented our progress in this project from the first part of this presentation. So this is the second part here. So as a recap, the goals of that project is basically to make Moodle more accessible by default. Fix the accessibility issues raising the audit, mainly level A and level A only. And of course, achieve WCAG 2.1 level A accreditation. And we also aim to fix this by the release of Moodle 3.9. So basically, we were able to achieve all of this, except for the part of fixing all of these issues. We were able to fix all of the issues by 3.10. And by November 2020, we were given the accessibility accreditation. Cool. So what happens is then, job done. No, not really. So yeah, of course, our job is not done. We have more accessibility audits performed in a semi-annual fashion. So we had 3.11 audited in 2021. And we got the accreditation in 2021. We had 4.0 audited in 2022. And this May, we finally got the accreditation for it. And then quite recently, about a month ago, we had 4.2 audited. And we are currently in progress about fixing the issues raised from this audit. So as usual, the page selection consists of 20 representative pages from existing features and new features of the Moodle version being audited. Cool. Sure. Now, some insights from the past audit. So we had four audits. I think we had, I can present some insights now. But before that, I would be grouping these insights, or basically charts later, based on the four main principles of web content accessibility. So first, web content must be perceivable. Or in other words, they should be accessible to everyone, even to people who are blind or deaf. Operable user interface elements should be accessible not just by mouse or touch, but also especially by keyboard. Understandable, we should be like presenting information that's easy to understand, like especially presenting error messages in a simple language that the user can understand. So the content must be consistent enough that it would allow various user agents, or including assistant technologies, to work consistently, like screen readers, reading different screen readers, reading the content in a consistent manner. So yeah, in terms of perceivable, so these are basically the uses that we encountered under the principle of perceivability, AA. So the x-axis represent the success criteria, locale 2.1 success criteria. And then the y-axis represent the number of pages affected that did not quite meet those criteria. The bars are the modal versions that were affected, like the blue ones, the 3.9, red, 3.11, yellow, 4.0, and green is 4.2. I might be skipping in some points. So yeah, the main uses we encountered early on relate to use of color. So for example, focus indicator, we didn't have good enough focus indicator at that time. In foreign relationships, basically, for example, the hidden focusable elements, like hidden skip links, or for example, elements missing labels, text alternatives, like for example, icon buttons without any text label. So screen reader users don't really know what's going on with those buttons. So yeah, as you can see, we seem to be improving. So for 3.9, 3.11, and we had some color issues. But for the succeeding audits, there's better. No issues were reported. And in terms of foreign relationships, we had some spike in 4.0 because we revamped the navigation and course home page at that time. So it's kind of expected. But after that, it's hopefully downward trend again. Cool. And in terms of perceivable level A, yeah, our main issues that we encountered are relate to color contrast, and then text contrast. Another example is the focus indicator. Not having enough contrast against the elements that are being focused. We also encountered issues related to reflow and resizing text. And especially when, for example, when the page is zoomed to 200% or 400%, the page doesn't look quite OK. So we had to fix those issues as well. And text spacing, for example, so if you resize the page, if you zoom the page, then some text are like overflowing or overlapping. So it's not good. So we had to fix them as well. Cool. Yeah. And in terms of operability, our main issues are relate to keyboard navigation, and then especially focus order. So the focus order issues were caused by elements having a tab index of greater than 0. This is not good because it messes with the natural tab order of the page. Another cause of this issue relates to ordering of elements visually by CSS when they are actually rendered in a different manner in the HTML. So for example, the messaging button before and the notifications button, you will see that the notification button comes first before the messaging button. But if you tab to those buttons, the messaging button gets tabbed first instead of the notifications button. So that's an example of that issue. Point of consideration, basically, it's about key down or mouse down events causing actions and preventing the user from canceling actions. Bypass blocks, skip links, a big post up hide. This is the animating drag and drop icon in the file picker. We had to replace this with a fixed one. Page titled, this is a recent one found that was raised in the 4.2 audit because we had some page titles that are not specific enough. For example, the grade book pages, the single view user report, grader report, they had the same page title, like grade's view. So it's not clear to the users which specific grade report they are viewing, so we kind of failed this one. And they're fixing this. I think it already got fixed in the recent weekly release. Operable, level A. Yeah, this is our main scourge, elements that are not using the Moodle browser focus indicator. So some elements are using the default browser's focus indicator. Anyway, yeah, this is problematic, especially for if the browser does not meet this criterion, so it can cause issues for us, especially for users. So we had to make sure that all focusable elements are using the standard focus indicator for Moodle elements. Cool, understandable. Yeah, our main, you should see that we encountered here relate to missing labels or not good enough in our instructions. Yeah, on focus and on input, for example, just actions triggering, on focus or on input, which is the drop-down menu. So we have to make them expand only on demand, like when the user explicitly clicks on it or press enter. Yeah, and this part in language of parts is like, basically, it affects a lot of pages because it's in the user menu. It's in the language selector. So it's just a missing language attribute in the language menu options, which is easy to fix. Cool, then robust. Yeah, the main you should be encountered here relates to parsing. So we had to make sure that we are rendering valid HTML. But note that in WCAG 2.2, when it gets released, this parsing requirement will be like phased out or removed because assistant technologies are basically better now that they don't need to directly parse the HTML. Another main issue here that we encounter is the name role value. Basically, if it relates to the missing labels as two, because if you have a missing label for a form element, for example, this also fails. Status messages, not enough feedback to the user when performing an action. So for example, when indenting an activity, you can see that it's indenting visually. But for certain users, they don't know what happened. So we had to fix this as well. So those are the main issues that we encountered in these past four audits. So I'd like to share some key takeaways from this. So I think I can confidently say that we have come a long way since Moodle 3.9. We are more accessible now. But even if this is the case, we are still learning. There's still so much to learn. And our promise to the communities that we will continue to strive to improve by having an accessibility first mindset, embedding accessibility in our processes, even in design, coding, and review. And I think that the road to a more accessible Moodle is never-ending, because there's always something, well, first Moodle is massive, and there's always something that we can improve. And it's just not about meeting the success criteria. And even if this is the case, I think it will just keep getting better over time. So thank you so much.