Re: Change proposal WCAG Techniques model with ACT Rules

"I wouldn't let that idea sidetrack the important ACT Rules work."

For sure. Can you explain what you feel are important parts of Failure
Techniques, that we couldn't put in ACT Rules? For sure this will bring
with it some more work, but I also think it will be a time saver on other
parts.

I'd much rather update an existing, well known and understood path, then to
make a completely new one. If we can do this, then we don't have to go
through the effort of teaching everyone about this new WCAG resource we're
creating. People already know that techniques are non-exhaustive, that
failure techniques are used to find common problems. Many people think
those are used by accessibility tools, and some do. We avoid doing all of
that education work if we can treat the ACT Rule Suite as an updated
approach to Failure Techniques.

Wilco

On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 8:11 PM, Katie Haritos-Shea <ryladog@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Wilco,
>
> I am not sure I see a need to *replace* WCAG Failure techniques with ACT
> Test Suite rules either. They are seperate things.
>
> Certainly it would be good for them to have agreement in some of thr ACT
> tests.
>
> I wouldn't let that idea sidetrack the important ACT Rules work.
>
> Katie Haritos-Shea
> 703-371-5545
>
> On Sep 25, 2016 1:12 PM, "Wilco Fiers" <wilco.fiers@deque.com> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>>


-- 
*Wilco Fiers* - Senior Accessibility Engineer