Re: Re[2]: Do SCs need to be testable?

Fantastic point Jim. We need to ensure that the user agent carries a fair share of responsibility here. 

Thanks 

Josh 

Sent from TypeMail



On 4 Nov 2015, 20:01, at 20:01, Jim Allan <jimallan@tsbvi.edu> wrote:
>Also, this does not need to fall solely on the author/content
>developer.
>The browser has a huge role to play in the "auto personalization" area.
>I
>don't want thousands of content developers writing thousands of
>interfaces
>to personalize their website. Much of the personalization must come
>from
>the browser.
>
>Jim
>
>On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 9:20 AM, josh@interaccess.ie
><josh@interaccess.ie>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>  On Oct 29, 2015, at 11:08 AM, Joshue O Connor <josh@interaccess.ie>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>  This brings up a question …  What are via alternatives to creating
>SCs?
>>>> Without the SC approach, would it merely result a tranche of new
>>>> techniques, or is there some other new or unused mechanism that
>might be an
>>>> alternative?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I think the alternative would be to have guidelines and examples.
>>>
>>> The guidelines do not need to be testable — but set a goal.
>>>
>>> The examples show how it can be done.
>>>
>>> The idea would be to go beyond what you can require   because
>requiring
>>> something means it must be testable and apply everywhere.  And there
>are so
>>> many good ideas that don’t match these two requirements and
>therefore don’t
>>> get recorded.
>>>
>>> Also - trying to get more things required will get much push back
>from
>>> industry.   And for some reason they are very against things that
>relate to
>>> what they view as ‘usability’ - which is much or all of cognitive
>>> disability.     The are very much FOR it in design — but not for it
>being
>>> required.   The way to ride that — is to create a great manual on
>how to do
>>> it — but avoid making SC or requirements because    a) it will then
>be
>>> resisted and diminished   b) you will have to leave out — or
>diminish
>>> yourself -  so many good ideas because they can’t be SC and if you
>have a
>>> few SC and mostly not— the mostly not (which will most of the great
>stuff)
>>> will be second class citizens in your own document.
>>>
>>> Very useful info, thanks Gregg
>>
>> Josh
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Gregg
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  On Oct 29, 2015, at 11:08 AM, Joshue O Connor <josh@interaccess.ie>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>  Hi all,
>>>>
>>>>  TTBOMK, any new success criterion must be testable. If not, it’s a
>>>> clear departure from the original WCAG requirements framework. If
>we do
>>>> need to depart from the framework (for whatever reason) – then we
>cannot
>>>> call these new SCs success criteria. We’d need to come up with
>something
>>>> else. I’m only making an objective statement here, and not making
>any value
>>>> judgement.
>>>>
>>>>  This brings up a question relating to one of Greggs comments (and
>>>> thanks Gregg for your very helpful input). What are via
>alternatives to
>>>> creating SCs? Without the SC approach, would it merely result a
>tranche of
>>>> new techniques, or is there some other new or unused mechanism that
>might
>>>> be an alternative?
>>>>
>>>>  Thanks
>>>>
>>>>  Josh
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>-- 
>Jim Allan, Accessibility Coordinator
>Texas School for the Blind and Visually Impaired
>1100 W. 45th St., Austin, Texas 78756
>voice 512.206.9315    fax: 512.206.9264  http://www.tsbvi.edu/
>"We shape our tools and thereafter our tools shape us." McLuhan, 1964