Re: Change proposal WCAG Techniques model with ACT Rules

Hi Kathy

The way Auto-WCAG rules are currently written, yes there would be things
missing. But depending on if this is something the WCAG WG might be
interested in, we could decide that certain things, like examples, would be
required for rules in the ACT Rule suite.

As for testability: I actually see the key difference in manual testing.
Yes, ACT Rules are partly (sometimes entirely) automatable, but they can
also be used in QA testing, which isn't necessarily true for the current
Failure Techniques. Take for example this statement from F3, step 3 in the
test process: (https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/F3.html)

*If an image does convey important information, the information is provided
to assistive technologies and is also available when the CSS image is not
displayed.*

This isn't something you can give to a QA team for testing. They'll have
questions, like what assistive technology (and how do we use it?), and what
does it mean for information to be important? A11y experts can figure that
out just fine, but this isn't any more testable then the actual success
criterion. That's where I think we can make a huge difference.

Thoughts?

Wilco


On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 1:29 PM, Kathy Wahlbin <
kathy@interactiveaccessibility.com> wrote:

> Hi Wilco –
>
>
>
> I think the work that the ACT is doing is good and could help clarify the
> WCAG failures.  So I agree with that part.
>
>
>
> The test procedures in the WCAG failures could be replaced with the ACT
> rules but I don’t think that the ACT Rule Suite would replace the
> failures.  The failures are an important part of defining what is meant by
> the success criteria and provide more than just the test procedure.  Within
> the failure there is description, examples and references that are key
> pieces of information.
>
>
>
> When you say “many of them are difficult to test” – are you thinking of
> strictly automated testing?  If you include manual testing, they are
> testable.
>
>
>
> Kathy
>
> CEO & Founder
>
> Interactive Accessibility
>
>
>
> *T* (978) 443-0798  *F* (978) 560-1251  *C* (978) 760-0682
> *E* kathyw@ia11y.com
>
> www.InteractiveAccessibility.com
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.interactiveaccessibility.com_&d=CwMGaQ&c=jxhwBfk-KSV6FFIot0PGng&r=UK__SX18Mp9Fb6tIJfzgjkhM1qTux9WksegD3zR-Bss&m=Kyx2xjSikKdohzK4YYjpf6lkpNeSYzbcW2-3BWkmRfM&s=QvEa6SOOfiPYi3edgtQBne9UjZFUHulJz3xqkGwAu7o&e=>
>
>
>
> NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential
> information. If you are not the intended recipient, please reply to the
> sender indicating that fact and delete the copy you received. Any
> disclosure, copying, distribution or action taken or omitted to be taken by
> an unintended recipient in reliance on this message is prohibited and may
> be unlawful.
>
>
>
> *From:* Wilco Fiers [mailto:wilco.fiers@deque.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, September 23, 2016 9:32 AM
> *To:* public-wcag-act@w3.org
> *Subject:* Change proposal WCAG Techniques model with ACT Rules
>
>
>
> Hi team!
>
>
>
> During the TPAC meeting we had an interesting discussion about the
> relation between WCAG techniques and ACT Rules. The WCAG group is currently
> discussing failure techniques. We had a quick discussion and I want to send
> a proposal to the WCAG WG, to see if our work can help with there problem.
> The way we discussed it is as follows:
>
>
>
> There is a certain overlap between WCAG Failure techniques and ACT Rules.
> Failure techniques have a negative 'tone' to them, and many of them are
> difficult to test. What we'd like to do is design our ACT Rule Suite in
> such a way that it could and eventually would replace the failure
> techniques. ACT Rules would be much more testable, and have a clearer
> relation to sufficient techniques. e.g. Sufficient Techniques give
> developers a way to meet a criterion, ACT Rules are for testing the
> accessibility. Neither is an exhaustive list, but they can be grown over
> time to cover ever more ground.
>
>
>
> The way I'd think this could happen is that as Auto-WCAG comes up with ACT
> rules for the ACT Rule Suite, we'd start putting those rules in the place
> of failure techniques, removing failure techniques as we add more rules.
>
>
>
>
>
> We'll have this on the agenda for next Wednesday's meeting. Please e-mail
> me if you have any concerns you want to discuss.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> --
>
> *Wilco Fiers* - Senior Accessibility Engineer
>
>
>


-- 
*Wilco Fiers* - Senior Accessibility Engineer