W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wai-rd-comments@w3.org > October 2012

[public-wai-rd-comments] <none>

From: Wayne Dick <wayneedick@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2012 22:54:02 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJeQ8SCV8+aqsPneNdQXK6e3awNg0GL2ejtO-qFHSzk_ZTtd4Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-wai-rd-comments@w3.org
Missing quality: Efficacy

Though not in your symposium, I think a key parameter is efficacy.

Efficacy is not validity.  Efficacy measures whether an intervention
actually treats the impairment that it is intended to treat.  Also,
for whom does it work, and for whom does it fail, and hopefully, why.

Each criteria of WCAG 2.0 is targeted at a particular user need.  For
example, users with central retina damage benefit from large print.
Does the text size criteria 1.4.4 help a significant number from this
group.  Are there other groups that are helped by this criterion even
if retinal scotopia is not?  The goal of this criteria is to support
reading for a significant group of people.  Do pages that meet 1.4.4
treat the reading impairment caused by small print?

Accessibility claims to be a cure.. to relieve the impact of what is
generally a medical condition.  Does it provide the cure it claims to
provide?

Scope

Testing every site really is not necessary.  That is why we have
statistics.  I think our time would be better spent exploring
statistically valid sampling techniques.

We have many years of clinical trials research to draw upon.  We also
have statistical sampling techniques for quality assurance in
manufacturing.

I think adaptation of this technology would be productive.

Congratulations:
This is a really nice start.  I add my 2 cents for consideration, not
as a fix all.

Keep it up.

Wayne Dick
Received on Thursday, 4 October 2012 05:54:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 20 November 2012 14:12:43 GMT