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

Hi all,

I agree with the comments so far but want to emphasize a few points:

#1. The rules currently in the pipeline are probably not comprehensive 
enough to replace all Failures accompanying WCAG 2, so these two will 
likely need to co-exist for some time anyway.

#2. Failures are sometimes broader in scope than rules, for example 
applying to several technologies or situations. That is, Failures may 
not be fully replaceable by rules in all cases.

#3. Rules primarily address developers of automated tools and manual 
methodologies, while Failures address a broader audience with further 
information such as examples and background.

Given this, I don't think we should be aiming to replace Failures but 
rather to augment them with more specific "testing procedures". We may 
not always have all the rules to address all aspects of a Failure, and 
in some cases we may have rules for which no Failures exist yet. In my 
view, it is fine to continually add to the overall WCAG documentation 
with incremental bits for the broad variety of different audiences.

Note: The "Techniques" and "Failures" have been moved outside the TR 
space for easier re-publishing and maintenance by AGWG. There is also 
the desire to redesign these resources from their current TR style to 
make them more usable and integrated (eg. with the "How to Meet WCAG 2 
Quick Reference" widget). This should be happening in the coming few 
months, and will be an opportunity to better integrate the ACT Rules.

Best,
   Shadi


On 26/04/2019 16:19, Katherine Eng wrote:
> When writing the Trusted Tester process, we wrote the tests so they 
> covered the Failure Techniques and would result in a failure of the SC.
> 
> While I agree they were an odd fit, the Failure Techniques are a quick 
> way for authors to learn what NOT to do. I don’t think that’s as easy to 
> find in the ACT Rules.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Kathy Eng
> 
> *From:* Wilco Fiers <wilco.fiers@deque.com>
> *Sent:* Friday, April 26, 2019 7:14 AM
> *To:* Alistair Garrison <alistair.garrison@levelaccess.com>
> *Cc:* Stein Erik Skotkjerra <ses@siteimprove.com>; Accessibility 
> Conformance Testing <public-wcag-act@w3.org>
> *Subject:* 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 
> <mailto: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
>     <mailto:ses@siteimprove.com>>
>     *Date: *Friday, 26 April 2019 at 10:53
>     *To: *Alistair Garrison <alistair.garrison@levelaccess.com
>     <mailto:alistair.garrison@levelaccess.com>>, Accessibility
>     Conformance Testing <public-wcag-act@w3.org
>     <mailto: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
>     <https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fw3c%2Fwcag%2Fpull%2F381&data=02%7C01%7Ceng%40access-board.gov%7C890512036b4643ac692e08d6ca38578b%7Cfc6093f5e55e4f93b2cf26d0822201c9%7C0%7C0%7C636918740679955679&sdata=d65%2B0i1%2FNdLpsi8Si0EcLBIVBXaZRuY8eUlbT1agt2U%3D&reserved=0>
> 
>     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.
> 
>     cid:image001.png@01D37335.32C5A170
> 
>     Stein Erik Skotkjerra
> 
>     /Head of Accessibility Relations/
> 
>     cid:image002.png@01D37335.32C5A170
>     <https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fsiteimprove.com%2Fda%2F&data=02%7C01%7Ceng%40access-board.gov%7C890512036b4643ac692e08d6ca38578b%7Cfc6093f5e55e4f93b2cf26d0822201c9%7C0%7C0%7C636918740679965687&sdata=P0Cu2FhBrBFmLvh2r9bsnQrKMfoM7rJ0bz%2BK7QA7qxY%3D&reserved=0>
> 
>     Sankt Annæ Plads 28  |  DK-1250 København K
> 
>     Mobile +45 26 34 34 55  | ses@siteimprove.com
>     <mailto:ses@siteimprove.com>
> 
>     Facebook
>     <https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2FSiteimprove&data=02%7C01%7Ceng%40access-board.gov%7C890512036b4643ac692e08d6ca38578b%7Cfc6093f5e55e4f93b2cf26d0822201c9%7C0%7C0%7C636918740679965687&sdata=YC0dVDXqdo0v9y4IoJsrPLe2Lu%2BP7G8zihBrszWNa54%3D&reserved=0>Twitter
>     <https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2FSiteimprove&data=02%7C01%7Ceng%40access-board.gov%7C890512036b4643ac692e08d6ca38578b%7Cfc6093f5e55e4f93b2cf26d0822201c9%7C0%7C0%7C636918740679975695&sdata=oBpMgB%2BuZ4kuLXNrDleBFjDMfXlI5Ki7%2Bq3TDL91ows%3D&reserved=0>LinkedIn
>     <https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fcompany%2Fsiteimprove&data=02%7C01%7Ceng%40access-board.gov%7C890512036b4643ac692e08d6ca38578b%7Cfc6093f5e55e4f93b2cf26d0822201c9%7C0%7C0%7C636918740679985703&sdata=uzPG3OWlv90UVssM7vXkz4YFEQqPdXyNJGUfz0mmOVM%3D&reserved=0>
> 
>     /Unsubscribe/
>     <https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fgo.siteimprove.com%2Fhs%2Fmanage-preferences%2Funsubscribe-simple&data=02%7C01%7Ceng%40access-board.gov%7C890512036b4643ac692e08d6ca38578b%7Cfc6093f5e55e4f93b2cf26d0822201c9%7C0%7C0%7C636918740679995712&sdata=DQPPzncLwdPcsCfZl%2FcryodnhzrHdrhVPPxamn%2B%2Bt9w%3D&reserved=0>Stein
>     Erik Skotkjerra
> 
>     *From: *Alistair Garrison <alistair.garrison@levelaccess.com
>     <mailto:alistair.garrison@levelaccess.com>>
>     *Date: *Friday, 26 April 2019 at 11.38
>     *To: *Accessibility Conformance Testing <public-wcag-act@w3.org
>     <mailto:public-wcag-act@w3.org>>
>     *Subject: *ACT Rules, a fitting replacement for Failure Techniques?
>     *Resent-From: *<public-wcag-act@w3.org <mailto: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
> 

-- 
Shadi Abou-Zahra - http://www.w3.org/People/shadi/
Accessibility Strategy and Technology Specialist
Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)
World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)

Received on Saturday, 27 April 2019 09:33:03 UTC