Re: ACT Rules, a fitting replacement for Failure Techniques?

Great!.  When I mentioned replacement, I should clarify that I meant removing Failure Techniques entirely.

So you have just Sufficient Techniques and ACT Rules.  Which might then fit very nicely with the AG’s direction of travel.

All the best

Alistair

From: Stein Erik Skotkjerra <ses@siteimprove.com>
Date: Friday, 26 April 2019 at 10:53
To: Alistair Garrison <alistair.garrison@levelaccess.com>, Accessibility Conformance Testing <public-wcag-act@w3.org>
Subject: Re: ACT Rules, a fitting replacement for Failure Techniques?

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hi, Alistair,
Agreed. It would make sense. Actually this has been discussed several times in meetings, and Wilco has presented the idea to the AG. He even did an example of how this might look:
https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/381

My understanding is that the AG are focusing a lot on sufficient techniques over failure techniques, though.

I don’t know where the discussion landed with the AG, but maybe it would make sense to revisit this.



Stein Erik Skotkjerra
Head of Accessibility Relations

[cid:image002.png@01D37335.32C5A170]<http://siteimprove.com/da/>

Sankt Annæ Plads 28  |  DK-1250 København K
Mobile +45 26 34 34 55  |  ses@siteimprove.com<mailto:ses@siteimprove.com>

Facebook<https://www.facebook.com/Siteimprove>   Twitter<https://twitter.com/Siteimprove>   LinkedIn<https://www.linkedin.com/company/siteimprove>

Unsubscribe<http://go.siteimprove.com/hs/manage-preferences/unsubscribe-simple>Stein Erik Skotkjerra

From: Alistair Garrison <alistair.garrison@levelaccess.com>
Date: Friday, 26 April 2019 at 11.38
To: Accessibility Conformance Testing <public-wcag-act@w3.org>
Subject: ACT Rules, a fitting replacement for Failure Techniques?
Resent-From: <public-wcag-act@w3.org>
Resent-Date: Friday, 26 April 2019 at 11.38

Hi,

I’m looking ahead and starting to realised that the ACT Rules we create could be a very fitting replacement for Failure Techniques (which I’ve felt have always sat a little strangely in the whole process).

I’m still, of course, a firm believer in using W3C Sufficient Techniques (where available) to show someone how to fix an issue found via a rule – as I’ve said many times.

So, in my head, ACT rules perfectly play Yin to Sufficient Techniques Yang.  In a way that Failure Techniques never quite did.

Interested to hear others thoughts on this.

All the best

Alistair

---

Alistair Garrison
Director of Accessibility Research
Level Access
+44 131 460 7871 (o)
+44 7925 045791 (c/m)