RE: REF 1.1a - Add definition to 1.1 for ability to be expressed in words

Giorgio Brajnik:
> In my opinion it is easy to determine if the textual alternative is
> equivalent: run a number of user tests, measure time to completion
> and/or number of errors and then compare these results with results
> obtained from a control group. (It's not a quick process,
> but it is doable and if done properly it leads to repeatable results,
> i.e. it is standard enough).

I strongly agree. Should this mean that we have to include some kind of user 
testing or inter-subjcective judgements in accessibility evaluation? This 
problem involve any semantic issue in accessibility (also navigation, content 
comprehension, etc.).

What does the Wcag-wg think about all non-machine testable evaluations of 
accessibility? There is an official position?

Thank you

Maurizio Boscarol
http://www.usabile.it