- From: Mary Jo Mueller <maryjom@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 17:35:17 -0500
- To: public-auto-wcag@w3.org
- Message-Id: <OFF05ECCC9.50DA8CEB-ON86257FD3.007BD5B5-86257FD3.007C1484@notes.na.collabserv.c>
I have consolidated the comments from Moe, Charu and myself. Realizing this
is a couple of days after the stated deadline, I don't think any of these
comments should stop the request to form the ACT working group from going
forward.
General Editorial comments:
There needs to be a more consistent use of "ACT Rules' or 'ACT Test
Rules" or "ACT Rule Suite". Instead of all three terms, use one
throughout these 3 documents so there's no confusion.
Comments on the ACT Task force Work Statement:
Editorial:
Approach section: The names of the documents used in the approach
section don't match the names of the documents in the Objective
section and should correspond with the latest list of documents
listed in the Objectives.
Substantive:
Objective statement, suggested edit: <Charu> The objective of the
[proposed] Accessibility Conformance Testing (ACT) Task Force is to
develop a framework and repository of test rules for WCAG 2.0 A, AA
criteria and beyond future versions of WCAG and/or other Web/digital
accessibility standards. This includes test rules for fully automated
and semi-automated conformance testing in different web technologies,
such as HTML, CSS, and WAI-ARIA. The work includes: </Charu>
Participation and Contributions sections seem to conflict in the
number of hours required to be considered active in the task force.
Participation says 4 hours per week, Contributions section says 2
hours per week.
Comments on the ACT Deliverables document:
Editorial:
<moe>Rule validation: How to ensure rule does not cause (unexpected)
false positives.</moe>
<moe>ACT Benchmark Tool The ACT Benchmark Tool will be developed by
Auto-WCAG, and should serve both as proof of the method, and as tool to
be used in further development of the ACT Rules (deliverable 3). The
exact details of this product can be determined once the benchmark
method is decided upon.
Substantive:
1. ACT Definition Spec: A W3C Recommendation defining how to write test
rules for accessibility conformance testing. Such test rules must give
accurate indication of conformance to a standard. The test rules are
consistently reliable and compatible with each other regardless of who
authored the rule or which software product they are implemented in. The
test rules may be common across technologies to verify WCAG 2.0 success
criteria or may be specific to different web technologies, such as HTML,
WAI-ARIA, EPUB, or others. The ACT Definition Spec will set the
requirements for any such test rule. It will be compatible with WCAG 2.0
but should be applicable to other web accessibility standards, such as
future versions of WCAG.
(Moe's comment: For example, a sufficient technique for meeting 2.4.1 is
to use ARIA landmarks, however, if we test only with HTML specific rules
and look for skip links the test will fail, so there needs to be a check
for skip links or landmarks. And then specific rules could ensure
appropriate implementation for the specific technology)
(Charu's comment: It is difficult to make the rules technology specific
as the technologies going forward are so interdependent, with HTML 5.1
and ARIA 1.1, most of the HTML now has implicit WAI-ARIA roles, states
or properties and so one can use HTML 5.1 with some of the applicable
states and properties without the aria roles.)
.
Comments for the Accessibility Conformance Testing for W3C document:
Some suggested editorial changes:
Introduction last sentence: '...where the developers of those tools
...' not
Problem description 2nd sentence: 'These contradictions cause...' not
'These contradictions causes...',
Problem description 3rd sentence: capitalize the third sentence
'These varying...',
Problem description 2nd bullet: '...are used to cause...' instead of
'...are used cause...'
Problem description last paragraph, 2nd sentence: change 'will
result' to 'could result' - softer language.
Problem description last paragraph, 3rd sentence: change 'Likely this
issue will reflect badly...' to 'This issue could also reflect
badly...' - softer language.
Scope first sentence: 'ACT rules' instead of 'ACT-Rules'...and is it
'can' or 'will'?
Scope first bullet: shouldn't HTML, CSS and ARIA be mentioned in the
rules scope? '...such as WCAG 2.0, ARIA 1.1, HTML 5'
Scope 3rd bullet: Need to add a verb so the sentence makes sense as
you read "ACT rules can be created to: 'be fully automated...'
Substantive:
Problem description: This doesn't reflect the very real issue that
when test tools disagree, then it could also cause issues with
customers. When different test tools yield different results it can
cause friction and mistrust between parties who both have the best
intentions.
Goals bullet #1: Not sure I understand the last sentence, 'By working
out those parts that are generally agreed upon, and identifying areas
which are not for discussion'. So there wouldn't be discussion on
areas of difficult interpretation? I think part of the goals should
also be to seek out clarification or guidance from the WCAG working
group on areas where there could be conflicting interpretation of the
requirement or how to test for compliance.
Goals bullet #2: I thought the focus, as stated in the scope are the
automated & semi-automated tests, not in defining manual testing
procedures. So I'm not sure how automated testing vs. expert testing
is being brought in here. I thought the goal is to have more
consistency between different automated test tools.
Best regards,
Mary Jo
Mary Jo
Mueller
Accessibility
Standards
Program
Manager
IBM
Accessibility,
IBM Research,
Austin, TX
Phone:
512-286-9698 |
Tie-line:
363-9698
Search for
accessibility
answers
"If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and
become more, you are a leader."
~John Quincy Adams
Attachments
- image/jpeg attachment: 13363178.jpg
- image/jpeg attachment: 13407902.jpg
- image/gif attachment: ecblank.gif
- image/gif attachment: 13126400.gif
Received on Wednesday, 15 June 2016 22:35:57 UTC