RE: Call for Review: ACT Rules Format 1.0 Final Working Draft

Thanks. BTW in the references chapter, the ARIA reference text mentions 1.0 but the links are for 1.1

"James Craig; Michael Cooper; et al. Accessible Rich Internet Applications (WAI-ARIA) 1.0. 20 March 2014. REC. URL: https://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria/"

Regards
Stefan


-----Original Message-----
From: Shadi Abou-Zahra [mailto:shadi@w3.org] 
Sent: Thursday, July 5, 2018 9:56 AM
To: Schnabel, Stefan <stefan.schnabel@sap.com>; public-wcag-act-comments@w3.org
Subject: Re: Call for Review: ACT Rules Format 1.0 Final Working Draft

Many thanks for your comment, Stefan. It has been raised an issue here:
  - https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/issues/221

Regards,
   Shadi


On 05/07/2018 09:49, Schnabel, Stefan wrote:
> Section "13. Accessibility Support":
> 
> "Because of this, ACT Rules are not necessarily applicable in all test 
> scenarios. For instance, a web page that has to work in assistive 
> technologies that have no WAI-ARIA [WAI-ARIA] 
> <https://www.w3.org/TR/act-rules-format/#biblio-wai-aria> support, 
> wouldn't be tested with an ACT Rule that relies on WAI-ARIA support, 
> since this could lead to false positive results."
> 
> This is not understandable without further examples or rewording 
> especially what "false positive results" would mean.
> 
> Concealment does not improve things.
> 
> I mean, shouldn't the rule set actively **encourage** the USE of 
> WAI-ARIA instead of doing protectionism for older AT and user agents?
> 
> Of course, respective rule messaging should be flagged accordingly.
> 
>   * Stefan
> 

-- 
Shadi Abou-Zahra - http://www.w3.org/People/shadi/
Accessibility Strategy and Technology Specialist
Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)
World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)

Received on Thursday, 5 July 2018 08:04:43 UTC