Re: WCAG 2.2 acceptance criteria

I agree. And reading comprehension is not the same thing as cognition.

This message was Sent from my iPhone. Please excuse any typographic errors.

On Mar 11, 2019, at 9:06 PM, Katie Haritos-Shea <ryladog@gmail.com<mailto:ryladog@gmail.com>> wrote:

Time to test should not be the reason to move a requirement to Level AAA. People did not just now start testing or training people to test for Accessibility.

These requirements are about helping people with disabilities to use the web.

Does this meet a user need, and is it testable? Period.

Audio description is Level AA, does not have a tool, and takes lots of time to test. Is it very valuable? Yes.

If 2.2 is going to be rail-roaded  to not include COGA SCs, yet again, I have no idea how there can be any respect left for this WG.

On Mon, Mar 11, 2019, 4:50 PM Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com<mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com>> wrote:
Hi David,

I agree that it probably won’t come up. From looking at the proposed SCs, the COGA ones are all interface / task-oriented SCs, so I don’t think this will come up for 2.2 anyway.

As a side note:
One source of my concern is from experience of testing at AAA, and SC such as:
3.1.6 pronunciation, where you have to read every word on the page and work out whether it could be mis-understood as another word. (E.g. is “Desert” used as “abandon” or “arid region”?)

It is *really* easy to miss instances, and very hugely time consuming to test, especially if you are doing it to the side of your day job (like most of the people I train). If there were a tool that could highlight those words from a set list, that would be a massive improvement. That is the type of thing that could pull the requirement up a level as it would be more feasible and applicable across scenarios.

NB: I’m not assuming that SC is something that helps folk with neuro-cognitive issues, it is just an example where available tools would make a difference.

Cheers,

-Alastair