Not to say you can't use both solutions, that's probably the best option.
But IMO these are really important tradeoffs for folks working on a11y ops to be thinking about.
Does that resonate? Have you seen this sort of effect?
I think it's possible that highly repeatable frequent/tooling winds up improving accessibility more.
Imagine a bug a person filed 9 months after it was unknowingly created never making it back to the team responsible vs. the team getting instant feedback / learning from their mistakes.
Ex: if a11y ops is comparing monitoring solutions, people do a much more comprehensive job than tooling, so they might seem like the obvious choice.
But the tradeoff is in repeatability, maybe people are able to monitor only once per year vs. tooling monitoring continuously.
Agreed. I find the "optimization of what's repeatable" POV helpful in evaluating strategies/solutions. To your tooling comment, I think there's a tradeoff: highly repeatable tooling may be a better choice than people, even if it's not as good at the task. bsky.app/profile/devo...
Makes sense. Would you say a11y ops is about optimizing the org's ability to do both those things (broader adoption, higher frequency, lower friction)?
Hey Devon! @segdeha.com looped me into this thread. I've been catching up on your book, so cool, congrats
Q: how do you think of "repeatable" when it comes to a11y ops?
