[Accessibility-testing] Defining our list of a11y tests

[Andrew Plotkin]

On Wed, 28 Feb 2018, Jason McIntosh wrote:

> As for accessibility techs: Folks brought up WCAG et al, which is 
> certainly relevant, but Deborah mentioning AbleGamers' Includification 
> document (http://includification.com) last summer really made me hit the 
> brakes -- per my email to the list yesterday. So, here's my follow-on 
> question there: rather than base our accessibility tests directly on a 
> lowest-level "alphabet-soup" standard, shall we instead base it on 
> Includification's extant work of applying these standards to video 
> games?

The point of WCAG is to give *high*-level guidelines. Not low-level.

"Perceivable, Operable, Understandable, Robust" gives you goals. Can you 
read what the game is telling you? Can you make it do what you want? Is it 
conveying all the information it needs to convey? Does it work for all 
users no matter what tech they're using?

Then "level A" (vs "AA" or "AAA") gives you a standard of how much work 
you need to reach "acceptable" (vs "good" or "great") standards across all 
of those.

All the stuff you list from the Includification document is specializing 
these goals for videogames. This is fine (modulo the parts that don't 
apply to IF) but it would be a mistake to start there without remember 
where it all comes from.

--Z

-- 
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
*