Re: ACT Rules, a fitting replacement for Failure Techniques?

Hey Alistair,
ACT Rules and failure techniques serve essentially the same purpose,
although they have a different target audience. Rules are written for
testers, whereas techniques are for content authors.

My initial thinking, as Stein Erik pointed out was to straight up try to
replace failure techniques with ACT rules. My thoughts on that have evolved
a little. I think actively trying to replace failure techniques is going to
create resistance, and make publishing ACT rules more difficult than it
needs to be. If you're right about rules being a suitable replacement (and
I think you are), then people will stop using failure techniques, and they
will be deemphasised over time to the point where they'll be deprecated.

W


On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 11:57 AM Alistair Garrison <
alistair.garrison@levelaccess.com> wrote:

> Great!.  When I mentioned replacement, I should clarify that I meant
> removing Failure Techniques entirely.
>
>
>
> So you have just Sufficient Techniques and ACT Rules.  Which might then
> fit very nicely with the AG’s direction of travel.
>
>
>
> All the best
>
>
>
> Alistair
>
>
>
> *From: *Stein Erik Skotkjerra <ses@siteimprove.com>
> *Date: *Friday, 26 April 2019 at 10:53
> *To: *Alistair Garrison <alistair.garrison@levelaccess.com>,
> Accessibility Conformance Testing <public-wcag-act@w3.org>
> *Subject: *Re: ACT Rules, a fitting replacement for Failure Techniques?
>
>
>
> *CAUTION:* This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not
> click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know
> the content is safe.
>
>
>
> Hi, Alistair,
>
> Agreed. It would make sense. Actually this has been discussed several
> times in meetings, and Wilco has presented the idea to the AG. He even did
> an example of how this might look:
>
> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/381
>
> My understanding is that the AG are focusing a lot on sufficient
> techniques over failure techniques, though.
>
>
>
> I don’t know where the discussion landed with the AG, but maybe it would
> make sense to revisit this.
>
>
>
> [image: cid:image001.png@01D37335.32C5A170]
>
>
>
> Stein Erik Skotkjerra
>
> *Head of Accessibility Relations*
>
>
>
> [image: cid:image002.png@01D37335.32C5A170] <http://siteimprove.com/da/>
>
>
>
> Sankt Annæ Plads 28  |  DK-1250 København K
>
> Mobile +45 26 34 34 55  |  ses@siteimprove.com
>
>
>
> Facebook <https://www.facebook.com/Siteimprove>   Twitter
> <https://twitter.com/Siteimprove>   LinkedIn
> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/siteimprove>
>
>
>
> *Unsubscribe*
> <http://go.siteimprove.com/hs/manage-preferences/unsubscribe-simple>Stein
> Erik Skotkjerra
>
>
>
> *From: *Alistair Garrison <alistair.garrison@levelaccess.com>
> *Date: *Friday, 26 April 2019 at 11.38
> *To: *Accessibility Conformance Testing <public-wcag-act@w3.org>
> *Subject: *ACT Rules, a fitting replacement for Failure Techniques?
> *Resent-From: *<public-wcag-act@w3.org>
> *Resent-Date: *Friday, 26 April 2019 at 11.38
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> I’m looking ahead and starting to realised that the ACT Rules we create
> could be a very fitting replacement for Failure Techniques (which I’ve felt
> have always sat a little strangely in the whole process).
>
>
>
> I’m still, of course, a firm believer in using W3C Sufficient Techniques
> (where available) to show someone how to fix an issue found via a rule – as
> I’ve said many times.
>
>
>
> So, in my head, ACT rules perfectly play Yin to Sufficient Techniques
> Yang.  In a way that Failure Techniques never quite did.
>
>
>
> Interested to hear others thoughts on this.
>
>
>
> All the best
>
>
>
> Alistair
>
>
>
> ---
>
>
>
> Alistair Garrison
>
> Director of Accessibility Research
>
> Level Access
>
> +44 131 460 7871 (o)
>
> +44 7925 045791 (c/m)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
*Wilco Fiers*
Axe product owner - Co-facilitator WCAG-ACT - Chair ACT-R / Auto-WCAG