"developers of evaluation tools and test methodologies" may be just a sub set of ACT Rules audience

[daniel-montalvo]

Mainly for @WilcoFiers and @shawna-slh

@WilcoFiers and I discussed yesterday that "developers of evaluation tools and test methodologies may be just a subset of ACT Rules target audience. Some other use cases for this work include:

• Accessibility testers can run the edge cases of the rules and compare them with their obtained test results
• Accessibility test tool users can look at the rules for documentation on how testing works
• Accessibility experts can use the rules and their corresponding implementations for documentation on test tools outcomes based on the existing test cases

So instead of "For developers of evaluation tools and test methodologies" we could have:

• For Developers and Users of Test Tools and Methodologies
• For test tool and methodology developers, accessibility testers, and more

Thoughts?

[shawna-slh]

Hey @daniel-montalvo and @WilcoFiers

Thanks much for the additional perspectives. I appreciate that others besides tool and methodology developers will find the rules useful, even though that is a very small percentage users. At the same time, I’m not convinced that’s important for this statement, or worth making it more complex.

And I think we can probably come up with something even better to say here.

First, let’s make sure that we understand and agree on the purpose of the text. Some important things that this text might address:

• Make it clear what the page is, e.g., for users who land on a page from a search engine
• Make it clear that it’s not required to meet WCAG (e.g., Individual techniques pages must list that they are informative/non-normative
• For the majority of folks for whom the page is overwhelming and not useful, help them not struggle with trying to make sense of this level of detailed, complex technical info

For example, put on the hat of a designer or developer looking for guidance on contrast or alt for image or making videos accessible. From a search engine you land on an ACT Rule.

Per #103 (comment) , perhaps if the first text in the banner is “ACT Rules” then maybe something like:

• ACT Rules | for accessibility conformance testing (ACT)

Is that enough to meet the goals?!? Does it provide the clarity needed? Perhaps EOWG input would be helpful on this?

Or maybe:

• ACT Rules | Accessibility conformance testing (ACT) rules for tools and methodologies
• ACT Rules | Accessibility conformance testing (ACT) details, primarily for tools and methodologies
• ACT Rules | Details for accessibility conformance testing (ACT) tools and methodologies
• ACT Rules | Guidance on accessibility conformance testing (ACT)
• ACT Rules | Rules for accessibility conformance testing (ACT)
• ACT Rules | Accessibility conformance testing (ACT) rules for accessibility specialists

Hopefully you who are more familiar with the Rules and the primary audience can think about the goals and user hats and come up with something better!

[WilcoFiers]

I'm going to propose the shortest one on the list:

ACT Rules | Rules for accessibility conformance testing (ACT)

[daniel-montalvo]

Hey @WilcoFiers @shawna-slh

We could also get rid of the second instance of "rules", as "rules" is already in the first bit of the text. Same goes for ACT.

ACT Rules | for accessibility conformance testing

I don't feel strongly anyway.

[shawna-slh]

Oops, I think my actual suggestion was lost above the list:

ACT Rules | for accessibility conformance testing (ACT)

I don't think we need to repeat 'Rules' and I do think it is good to include the acronym at the end so it's clear that ACT=accessibility conformance testing