Re: This is significantly different from what was agreed. - was Re: CFC: Manual testing processes

 >The resolution implication is different to what was discussed. We CAN 
NOT pass the >resolution if this implication does not allow for 
exceptions via user testing at least >without a real discussion so we 
all understand what is at stake

Sorry Lisa. I don't understand your point here. If anyone does user 
testing and finds issues for any given target group then they are 
totally free to flag those issues and make recommendations on the 
outputs or results of a test.

There is no explicit restriction here that I can see, can you clarify 
what you mean?

Thanks

Josh

> lisa.seeman <mailto:lisa.seeman@zoho.com>
> 15 February 2017 at 13:15
> The resolution implication is different to what was discussed. We CAN 
> NOT pass the resolution if this implication does not allow for 
> exceptions via user testing at least without a real discussion so we 
> all understand what is at stake
>
> We agreed we were not making user testing a requirement for conformance.
>
> This implication is significantly different and changes things.
>
> User testing was ok to enable an exception. In other words it is not 
> required, but you can claim an exception via use testing.
> For example use active voicing unless user testing with five people 
> with cognitive disabilities has shown passive voicing to be clearer.
>
> This implication has not been discussed . The vote is meaningless if 
> this "implication" has nt been fully understood by everyone voting
>
> This add be shown to be
>
> All the best
>
> Lisa Seeman
>
> LinkedIn <http://il.linkedin.com/in/lisaseeman/>, Twitter 
> <https://twitter.com/SeemanLisa>
>
>
>
>
> ---- On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 08:59:19 +0200 
> *Chakravarthula<srchakravarthula@informatica.com>* wrote ----
>
>
> Chakravarthula, Srinivasu <mailto:srchakravarthula@informatica.com>
> 15 February 2017 at 06:59
> +1
>
> Regards,
> Srinivasu Chakravarthula | Informatica | @CSrinivasu
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> Andrew Kirkpatrick <mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>
> 14 February 2017 at 03:19
> Call For Consensus — ends Wednesday February 15th at 10:30pm Boston time.
>
> The requirements for WCAG 2.1 SC's 
> (https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_2.1_Success_Criteria have been 
> discussed at length. Included in the requirements is #2, which states 
> "Be testable through automated or manual processes”, which indicates 
> that in order for a success criteria to be regarded as “testable” it 
> must be possible to determine whether a page passes that criteria 
> using automated or manual testing processes.
>
> On last Tuesday’s call the WG came to a resolution regarding this 
> item, specifically related to user testing. The group also surveyed 
> this question, and arrived at a unanimous agreement:
>
> "User testing is not a required part of a manual testing process for 
> WCAG test criteria.”
>
> This resolution indicates that if the only way to test a success 
> criteria is to conduct user testing, then that is not “testable” with 
> regard to WCAGT 2.1.
>
> The Working Group will recommend strongly in WCAG 2.1 (as it did in 
> WCAG 2.0) that user testing be conducted.
>
> For background:
> Call minutes: http://www.w3.org/2017/02/07-ag-minutes.html
> Survey: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/testing20170207/results#xq1
>
> If you have concerns about this proposed consensus position that have 
> not been discussed already and feel that those concerns result in you 
> “not being able to live with” this decision, please let the group know 
> before the CfC deadline.
>
> Thanks,
> AWK
>
> Andrew Kirkpatrick
> Group Product Manager, Standards and Accessibility
> Adobe
>
> akirkpat@adobe.com
> http://twitter.com/awkawk

-- 
Joshue O Connor
Director | InterAccess.ie