Re: A testability example

Hello Lisa,
Fundamental issue: Does this not impinge on the author's  choice i.e.
writing style, selection of words / phrases etc.?
Yes words have synonyms  but very often there is a nuanced difference
between one word and its synonym.
When one adds an alt to an image,  the image does not go away but one
who cannot see can at least  have some understanding of what the image
represents, its purpose in the context of its use. Surely without
vision one cannot perceive or appreciate the  asthetics of the
Likewise,  adding markup so that content that looks like a list is
exposed as a list to AT or  adding TH-TD relationship to a table does
not change the look and feel of the original content for non-AT users.
But for instance, conforming with SC 2.4.10 i.e. inserting heading
text where none exists does change the content and is a AAA level SC
that helps users with learning disabilities / vision impairment.
So, one may require use of simple, more common  words etc. as
proposed, say, in an alternative rendering of the content. Is that
what the proposed SC suggests?
Or am I missing something?
Thanks and best wishes,
Sailesh Panchang

On 2/8/17, lisa.seeman <> wrote:
> Hi Folks
> The COGA task force have been having an interesting discussion., I thought
> it would pass it on to the WCAG list to check we are on the same pagein
> terms of testability
> we have a  criteria such as  Simple, clear, and common words: Use words or
> phrases that are most-frequently used for the current context, unless it
> will result in a loss of meaning or clarity.
> The base criteria (not the exception) is nicely testable. we have defined
> any terms we thought  that look ambiguous.. We have simple  algorithms and
> word list with the most common words/meaning in different languages are
> available, and there are even tools in the translation business for making
> new word lists for different languages.
>  The hard to test parts is the exception.  IE "unless it will result in a
> loss of meaning or clarity"
> The bench mark for human testability is that 8 out of 10 experts in the
> topic are confident that they are right. It has to be completely obvious
> that this is clearer and easier to understand before you use the exception.
> That is exactly what we want    If 8 out of ten accessibility testers would
> not agree that it is clearer to use a less common word  then use the more
> common word. If you are not sure you can  conform it with user testing
> (which is  another exception).
> Is that what is intended. Are we understanding it the same way?
> note that in many success criteria in wcag part of it is testable and part
> is less so. For example in 1.1.1 an alt tag needs to serve the same function
> or purpose as the image.
> In fact it never can because part of the images role is aesthetics.  When it
> first came out you did not often had consensus about the full 1.1.1 was
> fulfilled. You could get consensus easily whether there was an alt text. But
> that is all that is fully testable and that is not what wcag requires.
> All the best
> Lisa Seeman
> LinkedIn, Twitter

Received on Thursday, 9 February 2017 15:28:21 UTC