RE: REF 1.1a - Add definition to 1.1 for ability to be expressed in words

On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 maurizio@usabile.it wrote:

>
>Giorgio Brajnik:
>> In my opinion it is easy to determine if the textual alternative is
>> equivalent:

Well, not easy, but feasible. For a number of real world examples. I think we
need to do this in order to provide sufficiently demonstrative techniques
for people to work out how to apply the guidelines to their particular case
(do I have a 4-second animation that I can easily replace with a 5-word
phrase? Or should I provide something more than a quick text summary for my
23-mintues educational film?).

>What does the Wcag-wg think about all non-machine testable evaluations of
>accessibility? There is an official position?

Yes, in the WCAG 2.0 requirements the official agreed position is that
requirements must be testable, but do not need to be machine testable.

-- see http://www.w3.org/TR/wcag2-req/ and go down to appendix A, items N4 -
N7.

cheers

Chaals

Received on Sunday, 13 July 2003 13:04:05 UTC