W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org > September 2016

Fwd: Re: testability

From: lisa.seeman <lisa.seeman@zoho.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2016 19:01:19 +0300
To: "public-cognitive-a11y-tf" <public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org>
Message-Id: <157529f5d99.bb26d5a343980.3639783846430464709@zoho.com>
Hi Folks


It is worth noting that wording in SC are likely to be change. What WCAG realy need from us is to see that 
it can be made testable and
the use case, benefits
Why we think it is A or AA conformance. We need to back this up

In the testability section we can be very flexible.  Andrew explained it as follows


 It would be helpful if you could anticipate questions the WG might have about whether a SC is testable and offer comments.  


For example, if part of an SC says "Headings can be clearly distinguished from paragraph text” you might anticipate the group wanting to make sure that what the parameters on clarity are.  Or, if you are aware of a testability challenge that exists you might even pose a question to the WG - “We are aware that ‘clearly distinguished’ is not testable language, but are struggling with how to make this testable.”


If a SC was “all images must never use the color #fcfcfc” then the testability section won’t have much to say, and that’s ok.  The testability section is to provide additional information to help the group understand when it isn’t obvious. 



Benefits need to give examples that make it personal and real and show how bad it can be when this SC is not met


and that gives the case of it's conformance level (A or AA etc)



All the best

Lisa Seeman

LinkedIn, Twitter
Received on Thursday, 22 September 2016 16:01:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 22 September 2016 16:01:54 UTC