[Accessibility-testing] Defining our list of a11y tests
Andrew Plotkin
erkyrath at eblong.com
Fri Mar 2 17:14:53 EST 2018
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..."
*
More information about the Accessibility-testing
mailing list