RE: CONFORMANCE: new sentence on testability, plus comments

John Wrote

 

(1) It appears that the "minimum success criteria" may not be sufficient
to assure even minimal accessibility for some people.  There is a clear
implication that it may be necessary to go to Level 2 or Level 3
conformance in order to make content "accessible to people who would not
be able to access it if only the minimum requirements had been met."  Is
this in fact what we want to say?

 

 

Response:

Yes.  Because no matter what we do there will always be people who
cannot use the site.  Even if the site were rewritten specifically for
that individual, there are some who would not be able to comprehend or
use the site.    So the minimum will not be able to cover every
technique that would be needed by every person.    Higher levels will
include things that would make sites usable by more people, but never
all.

 

 

 

John also wrote

(2) The conformance statement says that Level 2 and Level 3 "build on"
the level of functionality achieved by meeting the minimum requirements,
thereby making content accessible to people who still wouldn't be able
to get to it if only the minimum requirements had been met, or making it
easier for people to use (instead of just barely accessible), etc., etc.
But for a number of the checkpoints, the only difference between
"Minimum" and Level 2 is that, at Level 2, the material has been
reviewed and the reviewer(s) believe(s) it meets the requirements.  This
is "going beyond" the minimum requirement in organizational/bureaucratic
terms, but it doesn't ensure that the developers have done anything more
than they did to meet the minimum requirement-so it may not affect the
quality of the user's experience.

 

 

 

Response:

Yes.  This does seem to be a problem.   Lets figure out the levels and
then revisit this.

 

 


Gregg

 

 

 

 

 

Gregg

------------------------------------
Gregg Vanderheiden Ph.D.
Ind Engr - Biomed - Trace,  Univ of Wis
gv@trace.wisc.edu