W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org > March 2019

Re: WCAG 2.2 acceptance criteria

From: lisa.seeman <lisa.seeman@zoho.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2019 13:10:25 +0200
To: "Steve Lee" <stevelee@w3.org>
Cc: "public-cognitive-a11y-tf" <public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1696c707e07.b7a419e74393.4028317707599166207@zoho.com>
I am strongly  against requiring tools to go to CR. Having the algerithm etc should be enough.

with our history some people invested a lot to build tools and find open source tools etc. ( they just needed a better interface.)

Anyway, it is not reasonable to expect people to invest in making tools again before we even get to CR considering the group will probably pull everything out in the CR stage anyway

If a tool could reasonably be built in a few days of programming time, and in the meen time it can be tested by hand 9even if that is slower)  that should be enough.

All the best

Lisa Seeman

http://il.linkedin.com/in/lisaseeman/, https://twitter.com/SeemanLisa

---- On Fri, 08 Mar 2019 13:30:03 +0200 Steve Lee <mailto:stevelee@w3.org> wrote ----

On 08/03/2019 09:54, Alastair Campbell wrote: 

> Steve Lee wrote: 

>>   I'd rather drop the time element, as John proposed 


> I’m not married to that so long as we have some understanding it will work in the various scenarios John outlined, how about: 

> "Can be feasibly tested through a manual or automated processes, and any tools needed to test it are available before the Candidate Recommendation stage." 


>>   I also think Glenda's clarification of ways of testing adds value so could be added. 


> The descriptions are good, but you look at the bullets in context (given that we've had this massive discussion on 1 out of 8 bullet points), it adds a lot, and we're just trying to clear up that "it is testable". 


Only 7 to go.... (joke) 

Received on Monday, 11 March 2019 11:10:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:24:02 UTC