Re: Extension conflict/compatibility requirement

Hi Can

We cannot test all of WCAG with automation, only about 15-30% can be tested
via automation. We need human intervention. For large sites it is
prohibitively expensive. However, we have laid out recommendations on how
to sample pages and test a limited group of pages on a site in the
Evaluation Methodology.

http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-EM/


Cheers,

David MacDonald



*Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*

Tel:  613.235.4902

LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>

www.Can-Adapt.com



*  Adapting the web to all users*
*            Including those with disabilities*

If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy
<http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>

On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 8:39 PM, Can Wang <wcan@zju.edu.cn> wrote:

> Actually that SC says the alternate text shall serve the same purpose as
> the non-test content. I know it might seem inappropriate to pop up this
> question here. But this SC is not as easily tested as one might imagine. It
> is easy to have one person check the alt text for an image and tell whether
> the description matches the image. But it is difficult to automate this
> test. I mean have it done by a computer program. There was a website we
> once tested in China, with most of images on its pages captions as "This is
> an image". If you think the semantics of images are important, this alt
> text shall not pass the SC.
>
> We have encountered many similar issues in accessibility evaluation for
> websites in China. There are huge amount of pages in a site and human
> inspection is prohibitively expensive. So the evaluation must be automated.
> But in this sense, you find that many SCs are not easily TESTABLE. Shall be
> consider the easiness for automating the tests in the future?
>
> Can Wang
>
> 发自我的 iPhone
>
> 在 2015年10月29日，08:41，Gregg Vanderheiden RTF <gregg@raisingthefloor.org> 写道：
>
> Hmmm
> not quite
>
>
> For example and SC that says there must be alternate text (that is
> accessibility supported)  is very testable.    There are many ways to do it
> — so no one thing is deterministic.   But it is very easy to test if it is
> there in a manner that works with screen readers — by just using a screen
> reader.
>
> The question isnt whether one particular technique is deterministic but
> whether it can be test (automatically or by humans) in a reliable way.
>
>
> Another I that contrast must be X.    There are many techniques for
> ensuring this — but if it is true, it is true.
>
>
> So the question of whether something can be ANY KIND Of criteria — is
> whether you can tell when you have met it.   Success criteria are no
> different (if we want to use the english definition of criteria)..
>
> To be a criteria - it must be possible to know if you have met it.   That
> is, it must be testable in a way that you get a reliable, repeatable,
> consistent result when tested by different people.
>
> And if the criteria is to apply to all content — then it must be possible
> (and reasonable) and testable for all content.
>
> Bringing up techniques only muddies the water.    You can pass a technique
> and fail the SC (if there is other content on the page using another
> technology for example).  You can also fail a technique and pass the SC (if
> you met it another way).
>
> Don’t look to techniques to determine if something is a success criteria.
>
> Look to the criteria itself to see if it is
>
>    - testable
>    - applicable to all types of content it is scoped to apply to
>    - reasonable
>       - (requiring all web pages to be translated into sign language is
>       not currently reasonable or even possible - there arent enough people in
>       the world who know sign language to convert all the pages made in a day
>       into sign) (and if there is an automatic text to sign language ability -
>       there is no need to make alternate sign language pages because any page can
>       be converted on the fly)
>
>
>
>
> Gregg
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Oct 28, 2015, at 11:15 AM, Detlev Fischer <detlev.fischer@testkreis.de>
> wrote:
>
> Am 28.10.2015 um 16:17 schrieb Gregg Vanderheiden <
> gregg@raisingthefloor.org>:
>
> And having testable techniques does not make up for a non-testable SC.
> You need to be able to determine if the SC is met - not if a technique use
> for some content on the page passes.
>
>
> The thing is that there is no single test to determine if a SC is met, nor
> a finite set of tests (because techniques are not required, and new
> techniques to account for may emerge at any time - so in my view, this
> implies that conformance to a SC can never be established In a
> deterministic, fully replicable way (because this would require a fully
> operationalized, completely documented test procedure that can be exactly
> followed by anyone).
>
> I hope this does not come across as trolling. I think it is important to
> set realistic expectations regarding the outcome of a11y testing of complex
> content, and to realize that a conformance check is often not completely
> objective. It includes common sense judgments that take on board both
> quality (attributing "not ideal" content instances to either "pass" or
> "fail", and assessing the a11y impact of issues found) and quantity (number
> of issues on a particular page).
>
> Sent from phone
>
> And having testable techniques does not make up for a non-testable SC.
> You need to be able to determine if the SC is met - not if a technique use
> for some content on the page passes.
>
>
>