Re: Checkpoint on testability

I think I agree with Kynn - being testable doesn't seem to me to
automatically enhance accessibility. (But explaining accessibility features
of the site and how to use them probably does - I'll add that to my  list of
emails to send...)

However, it is a useful feature. It may also be an intersting issue for the
Authoring Tool Guidelines, at least as a possible extra feature, or a
technique that would be nice to have.

cheers

Charles McCN

On Thu, 21 Dec 2000, Kynn Bartlett wrote:

  At 5:16 PM -0500 12/21/00, Leonard R. Kasday wrote:
  >Per my action item from last call here's a first cut at a new guideline:
  >
  >Guideline X.  Design for so that testability can most easily be verified.
  >Pages should be designed to minimize amount of human effort needed
  >to confirm accessibility.

  I find this to be questionable in that it may not be possible in a
  fully CC/PP-driven, dynamic presentation model.

  In other words, it may be hard for someone who is not using specific
  hardware/software/environments/preferences to confirm accessibility
  for someone who _is_, because different presentations are delivered.

  This seems a bit like a meta-issue rather than an actual accessibility
  issue; it doesn't actually affect the accessibility of the content
  but rather someone's ability to evaluate that accessibility.  I am not
  convinced that those are on the same level of requirement, or even
  that this -needs- to be included in our guidelines.

  --Kynn


-- 
Charles McCathieNevile    mailto:charles@w3.org    phone: +61 (0) 409 134 136
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative                      http://www.w3.org/WAI
Location: I-cubed, 110 Victoria Street, Carlton VIC 3053, Australia
until 6 January 2001 at:
W3C INRIA, 2004 Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France

Received on Friday, 22 December 2000 08:51:09 UTC