Re: WCAG 2.2 acceptance criteria

Hi Lisa,

I generally agree, but I think we need to be careful to not attach too much
weight to the word "tools" - what we need for any and all emergent SC is a
robust enough test procedure (which may, or may not, involve a tool) so
that conformance to the SC can be measured and reported as conforming or
not.

As I mentioned to Jennie off-list, while we are *ALL* committed to
increasing access to the web for all users, the reality today is also that
in doing so, we need to deal with legal obligations - it is that "stick"
that counter-balances the "carrot" of increased access to all users.
Thousands+ of companies and other entities out there may want to do the
right thing, but if they cannot define it to the point that they can test
for it repeatedly, accurately, and without subjectivity, the sad truth is
they won't even attempt to do so.

I acknowledge that, at some level, time and effort will also be something
of a factor - but that remains true for any and all SC (as I pointed out
previously, to ensure an accurate Audio Description of a 3 hour movie means
you have to listen to the Audio Description for those three hours...).
None-the-less, we must also be mindful of efficiencies in testing as a
critical component in any of the work we do.

JF

On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 6:11 AM lisa.seeman <lisa.seeman@zoho.com> wrote:

> I am strongly  against requiring tools to go to CR. Having the algerithm
> etc should be enough.
>
> with our history some people invested a lot to build tools and find open
> source tools etc. ( they just needed a better interface.)
> Anyway, it is not reasonable to expect people to invest in making tools
> again before we even get to CR considering the group will probably pull
> everything out in the CR stage anyway
>
> If a tool could reasonably be built in a few days of programming time, and
> in the meen time it can be tested by hand 9even if that is slower)  that
> should be enough.
>
>
>
> All the best
>
> Lisa Seeman
>
> LinkedIn <http://il.linkedin.com/in/lisaseeman/>, Twitter
> <https://twitter.com/SeemanLisa>
>
>
>
> ---- On Fri, 08 Mar 2019 13:30:03 +0200 *Steve Lee <stevelee@w3.org
> <stevelee@w3.org>>* wrote ----
>
> On 08/03/2019 09:54, Alastair Campbell wrote:
> > Steve Lee wrote:
> >> I'd rather drop the time element, as John proposed
> >
> > I’m not married to that so long as we have some understanding it will
> work in the various scenarios John outlined, how about:
> > "Can be feasibly tested through a manual or automated processes, and any
> tools needed to test it are available before the Candidate Recommendation
> stage."
>
> +1
>
>
> >> I also think Glenda's clarification of ways of testing adds value so
> could be added.
> >
> > The descriptions are good, but you look at the bullets in context (given
> that we've had this massive discussion on 1 out of 8 bullet points), it
> adds a lot, and we're just trying to clear up that "it is testable".
>
> OK
>
> Only 7 to go.... (joke)
>
> Steve
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
*​John Foliot* | Principal Accessibility Strategist | W3C AC Representative
Deque Systems - Accessibility for Good
deque.com