W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > October to December 2000

RE: Checkpoint on testability

From: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 10:04:52 -0800
Message-Id: <>
To: love26@gorge.net (William Loughborough)
Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
At 09:04 AM 12/22/2000 , William Loughborough wrote:
>At 08:19 AM 12/22/00 -0800, Kynn Bartlett wrote:
>>I would rather see us focus on one or the other, either we are writing as if we are writing rules, or we are writing as if we are writing advice.
>I think we are writing both "rules" (or suggested rules?) and "advice" - usually the latter are best found in the techniques/examples parts, but they inform the former and must be dealt with almost simultaneously. If we put on our "imperator hats" and decree that henceforth no "altless" (with due exceptions) will be tolerated we must also be ready to advise how this is to be done.
>So we are writing rules with concommitant advice on how to obey them?

Okay, I'd be fine if that distinction were made a little more
explicitly.  That way we can write guidelines as rules, and explanatory
text or examples as advice.

>As to the instant discussion of whether "testability" should be a requirement we'll probably go through the usual discuss/decide/vote cycle. At this time I'm still voting "aye". Testability is an inherent necessity for conveying accessibility status, which in turn is a requirement for accessibility itself. IMO.

Conveyance of accessibility status is not a requirement for

Testability by a third party using automated tools is not a requirement
for conveyance of accessibility status.

I understand where this proposal is coming from -- Len's career seems
to be focused on automatic metrics for web accessibility -- but I do
not feel that this type of requirement removes any sort of barriers
or hurdles to access by people with disabilities.

If this were a WCAG 1 checkpoint, what priority would it be given and
why?  (I disagree with the conformance scheme but not with the checkpoint
priorities, in a vacuum; I think they're useful.)  Does lack of 
automatic testability create an insurmountable barrier to access? (P1)
Does it make it difficult for people with disabilities to access the
web? (P2)  Does the quality of testability make it easier to for
someone with a disability to access a web page, and if so, _how_? (P3)

I think the answers to all of these are "no".  That's not saying that
testability isn't a useful thing, or that it could play an important
role in the process of making a more accessible site, but I can't see
it being any sort of guideline-level requirement for accessibility
just to make a web accessibility evaluator's job easier.


Kynn Bartlett  <kynn@idyllmtn.com>                    http://kynn.com/
Director of Accessibility, Edapta               http://www.edapta.com/
Chief Technologist, Idyll Mountain Internet   http://www.idyllmtn.com/
AWARE Center Director                      http://www.awarecenter.org/
What's on my bookshelf?                         http://kynn.com/books/
Received on Friday, 22 December 2000 13:05:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:35 UTC