[techs] review of test #169

I used Michael Cooper's format for the review.
>Also, I preface each test with a keyword indicating what I think needs to 
be done: 
>ACCEPT, REJECT, MODIFY the test file, fix the TECHNIQUE, create a NEW 
test file, or DISCUSS.

[ REJECT, TECHNIQUE] Test #169 [1] select should contain optgroup if it 
has a large number of options.

There are several issues with this test.  First, optgroup is not well 
supported by the assistive technologies.  Second, determining what 
constitutes a "large" number of options is difficult.  The group needs to 
discuss if there are any accessibility benefits with this technique.  The 
benefits should not be discarded solely due to lack of support by user 
agents but it opens the issue of whether this technique and test is 
warranted. There is an editor's note in the associated technique that 
perhaps it is best left for the future. 

The most contentious issue will be determining a concrete value for the 
number of options.  I did some searching on the web and could not find 
recommendations for  a number of options that forces the use of 
<optgroup>.

The test is also missing the textual description of the Procedure, 
Expected Results, and Fail Procedure.  Since I am proposing that we reject 
this test I did not complete these sections.  The example for this test 
and for the technique is confusing.  I propose a simpler example be 
written.  If the group decides to pursue this test, I will take those 
action items. 


[1] http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/tests/test169.html


Becky Gibson
Web Accessibility Architect
                                                       
IBM Emerging Internet Technologies
5 Technology Park Drive
Westford, MA 01886
Voice: 978 399-6101; t/l 333-6101
Email: gibsonb@us.ibm.com