W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > April to June 2013

Re: Accessible does not imply usable (was International Web Access Guidelines "Ineffective", PhD thesis Claims)

From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 02 Jun 2013 12:20:24 +0100
Message-ID: <51AB2A78.3060405@splintered.co.uk>
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
On 02/06/2013 10:15, David Woolley wrote:
> I don't think accessibility can be reduced to machine checkable rules
> either.

And only a small part of WCAG 2.0 is actually machine-checkable, as it's 
about success criteria focussed on outcomes, rather than how those 
outcomes have been achieved (and which is why there are multiple 
techniques for each SC, and even then they're not exhaustive and there 
are likely many more variations - achieved in different technical ways - 
that still allow the SC to pass).

Patrick H. Lauke
re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively
[latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.]

www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk
http://redux.deviantart.com | http://flickr.com/photos/redux/
twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
Received on Sunday, 2 June 2013 11:20:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:49 UTC