W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > January to March 2019

Re: CFC - Publication of ACT Rules Format 1.0 as Candidate Recommendation

From: Detlev Fischer <detlev.fischer@testkreis.de>
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2019 12:40:04 +0100
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Message-ID: <f7c2bbf5-8d5d-fcb2-c46b-7ce75d2d8e7b@testkreis.de>
+1

The act-rules-format doc is clear and I support publication.

I add these notes purely for consideration by the ACT TF.

What I find missing is a description of how the ACT rules approach would 
fit into existing expert evaluation workflows, but that is probably not 
their main intented use.
E.g., how would the documentation work in a way that it would support 
the comparison of two independent tests to check if one replicates the 
other?

On a practical level, it seems that vetted/completed atomic rules are 
the most likely contenders for includion in established expert testing 
procedures out there.

A prominent link to a set of ACT rules that have already been developed 
/ agreed on so far would be beneficial to assess the benefit of this 
work for existing evaluation practices. This would also illustrate the 
approach better than the short example snippets currently in the 
act-rules-format doc.

Some phrases were hard to parse for me, e.g. this one:
"If the failed outcome cannot be mapped to an accessibility requirement, 
there MUST NOT be an accessibility requirement in the accessibility 
requirements mapping."

One thing made me wonder:

'Rules can be used to do complex aggregation by describing the logic in 
the expectations. e.g. "The test target (the page) has a text 
alternative for 80% of all img elements".'

Does this imply that composite rules may encapsulate conformance 
tolerances where atomic fails may be acceptable and lead to overall 
passes of an SC? This aspect does not seem to be discussed in this 
document - perhaps this is a discussion to be had on a higher level.

To me it was unclear how ACT Rules deal with priorities / impact on PwD: 
e.g. is an img element with missing alt a critical control or something 
unimportant?

The rule "video elements have an audio description" indicates the grey 
area that often exists - I guess the rule says nothing about criteria 
for deciding whether a particular video actually has content that needs 
an audio description, or whether that content (if it exists) can be 
considered neglegible. Or would that have to be made explicit under 
Assumptions?

-- 
Detlev Fischer
Testkreis
Werderstr. 34, 20144 Hamburg

Mobil +49 (0)157 57 57 57 45

http://www.testkreis.de
Beratung, Tests und Schulungen für barrierefreie Websites
Received on Thursday, 28 March 2019 11:40:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 21:08:29 UTC