RE: Change proposal WCAG Techniques model with ACT Rules

Wilco,

 

I have no problem with using the failures as a starting point for the ACT Rules – I do have a problem with trying to replace WCAG Failures…..

 

​​​​​

 

 

 

* katie *

 

Katie Haritos-Shea 
Principal ICT Accessibility Architect (WCAG/Section 508/ADA/AODA)

 

Cell: 703-371-5545 |  <mailto:ryladog@gmail.com> ryladog@gmail.com | Oakton, VA |  <http://www.linkedin.com/in/katieharitosshea/> LinkedIn Profile | Office: 703-371-5545 |  <https://twitter.com/Ryladog> @ryladog

 

From: Wilco Fiers [mailto:wilco.fiers@deque.com] 
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 4:24 AM
To: Katie Haritos-Shea <ryladog@gmail.com>
Cc: public-wcag-act@w3.org; Kathy Wahlbin <kathy@interactiveaccessibility.com>
Subject: 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 <mailto: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 <tel:703-371-5545> 

 

On Sep 25, 2016 1:12 PM, "Wilco Fiers" <wilco.fiers@deque.com <mailto: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 <mailto: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) <tel:%28978%29%C2%A0443-0798>  443-0798  F (978) <tel:%28978%29%C2%A0560-1251>  560-1251  C (978) <tel:%28978%29%C2%A0760-0682>  760-0682
E  <mailto:kathyw@ia11y.com> kathyw@ia11y.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=> www.InteractiveAccessibility.com

 

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 <mailto:wilco.fiers@deque.com> ] 
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 9:32 AM
To: public-wcag-act@w3.org <mailto: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