Re: [for review] ACT Review Process

Hi Shadi, ACT TF
I had a look at the review Process document. The basic problem for me is to understand how the process (submission of a rule backed by supporting test cases) would work in practice, so I would think it is worthwhile taking one or a few non-trivial examples of real web content and looking what the rule(s) might look like that would be supportive when deciding about conformance. THis exercise would show the uninitiated how it's going to play out.
 
A complex and at the same time very frequent example might be something like drop-down navigation menus (take for example a recent discussion between Matt King and Mallory on the Webaim list - the tail end is here http://webaim.org/discussion/mail_message?id=34968 )

What would rules look like that help me establish whether some menu conforms to 1.3.1, 2.1.1, 4.1.2, 2.4.3 etc? How can the rule be isolated from content aspects that may co-determine whether we think of some solution as acceptable or not (take the length of the submenus in cases where they are opened automaticlly when focused)? When does the aria menu pattern apply, and what deviations of the pattern are OK (conform) in what contexts?

We all know the difficulty of attributing an issue to the right SC - when an element does not get tab focus but you CAN activate it when arrowing there, does it violate 2.1.1? Or only 2.4.3? If a main menu item opens the submenu and a second activation does not close it but goes to a section page, is that a usability issue or necessarily a fail of some SC? Etc, etc...

So I believe working through a few practical real world implementations and showing how the ACT framework would support developers / testers in assessing real-world implementations would really help making the ACT activity a lot more tangible (it often feels quite abstract to me).

Finally, an invitation: ACT TF members wanting a test login to our COMPARE repository ( http://www.funka.com/en/projekt/compare/ ) are welcome - just give me a shout. The repository is early days, not yet in its final shape, and not yet public but it already has a few real world cases with accessiblility ratings. Should you want to add your rating, the comment field would give scope to outline the rules according to which someone has arrived at a PASS or FAIL conclusion. As a contributor of ratings you will be picking the SC (or multiple SCs) that you think should fail (or pass with comment).

Best,
Detlev



--
Detlev Fischer
testkreis c/o feld.wald.wiese
Thedestr. 2, 22767 Hamburg

Mobil +49 (0)157 57 57 57 45
Fax +49 (0)40 439 10 68-5

http://www.testkreis.de
Beratung, Tests und Schulungen für barrierefreie Websites

Shadi Abou-Zahra schrieb am 19.06.2017 19:54:

> Dear ACT TF,
> 
> Ref: 
> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/conformance-testing/wiki/ACT_Review_Process
> 
> As discussed during the call today, please review the outline for the 
> proposed ACT Review Process. Feel free to add your feedback to the wiki 
> discussion tab or by email.
> 
> Regards,
>   Shadi
> 
> -- 
> 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 Tuesday, 20 June 2017 09:00:43 UTC