Re: Checkpoint on testability

Thanks all for the comments on the first draft of "checkpoint on testability".

I can see now that I have to explain this guideline better.  I'll admit  I 
don't see it spelled out in the scope of the current WCAG charter, but I 
think its an important guideline that needs a home.  So I'll explain the 
guideline first and return later to the question of whether it belongs in 
GL.  I'm going to rephrase it a bit:

Minimize the amount of human effort needed to test if content is 
accessible.  For example, if two techniques produce equally accessible 
content, pick the technique that requires the least human effort to test 
the result.

Why? There are two reasons.

The first reason is that in the real world, there's only finite time 
and  money available  for testing.  And in the long run at least, after 
we've automated all the testing we can, it's human effort that takes time 
and costs money.  So if a site takes too much human effort to test, it will 
not get tested completely, or might not get tested at all.

Who does this affect?  it affects web authors who want to test their own 
work.  It affects system test departments in larger operations.  It affects 
organizations doing acceptance testing of web design work they have 
contracted out.  It affects organizations like schools who need to test if 
web resources are usable by all their students.   If testing takes too much 
effort for any of these organizations, it doesn't get done completely or at 
all.

So ultimately it affects the end user.  Because in today's world, if 
something isn't being tested, it probably doesn't work well or at all.  So 
if these organizations haven't tested, what's passed on the end user is 
less likely to be fully accessible.

And now for the second reason. This follows up a comment William made.  The 
end user to check for him or herself whether a site is accessible before 
trying to make use of it.  The more that testing can be automated, the more 
of that testing the user can do for him or herself.  That's because testing 
that takes human judgment costs the user time at best; and at worst it 
requires a type of judgment that the user can't do at all (e.g. a judgment 
requiring visual inspection of images for someone who's blind).

Now, we can debate whether this issue is in the scope of GL, but I think 
its quite important nonetheless.

So: is in in the scope of GL?  Well, on the one hand,  I don't see it 
spelled out in the charter.   But it is a requirement on content.  So what 
other group would do it?  As a practical matter, do we want to have two 
groups writing two different documents about content?

Seems to me GL is the best home for this Guideline.

Len
--
Leonard R. Kasday, Ph.D.
Institute on Disabilities/UAP and Dept. of Electrical Engineering at Temple 
University
(215) 204-2247 (voice)                 (800) 750-7428 (TTY)
http://astro.temple.edu/~kasday         mailto:kasday@acm.org

Chair, W3C Web Accessibility Initiative Evaluation and Repair Tools Group
http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/IG/

The WAVE web page accessibility evaluation assistant: 
http://www.temple.edu/inst_disabilities/piat/wave/

Received on Friday, 29 December 2000 14:45:36 UTC