Re: WCAG 2.2 acceptance criteria

Hi Jennie,

I’ll start this off! Regarding the timing for a test, the phrasing might need updating, but the intent was to ensure that it is feasible to test pages.

As some context: when we do audits for clients (which is ongoing everyday here!) it takes between 20 min & 1.5 hours to test a page at AA level, depending on the complexity and number of components. Other companies might have different estimates, but I think that’s a reasonable starting point.

That means it takes a few minutes per check, per page.

If a new criteria were to take an hour per page (for example) it would double the time of testing, which would hugely impact the cost of testing and whether that testing would happen at all in the wider world. That is something that is unlikely the group would agree to, so I thought it was worth making that requirement explicit.

This does intersect with tools, as we have good tools to check some of the more complex aspects, e.g. highlighting heading levels in a page.  That speeds up testing, making things feasible to do.

If a new tool is needed, that needs to be ready in time for publication (which means in time for approval). Otherwise we’re launching a new requirement that is not feasible for people to test. (That was a sticking point on at least one 2.1 SC, see previous email below, and we don’t want to repeat that.)

I’d also note that there a different tools/methods for different things, an whilst usability testing is definitely recommended, it isn’t something that fits into the WCAG 2.x framework of testing. As a general recommendation, people should do usability testing (with various PwD) as well, but the Silver TF is exploring ways that usability testing could be incorporated into an accessibility standard.

Cheers,

-Alastair


From: Alastair Campbell

Hi Lisa,

There are several things we’re pulling forward in the process to make the final result better in time for publication.

A test procedure, technique, and any tools/tech needed to meet the SC.

For example, we’re finding the Label in Name SC very time consuming to test. If we had required a test procedure that aspect would have come up earlier, and might have resulted in a re-wording or someone working on a tool for that prior to publication.

If a new tool would take a day of developers time, that is fine, it just needs to happen before the SC is accepted. (“Current” for the publication date.)

In the proposed process I’d suggest that the SC document is drafted, has a round of review to see if it might fly, then someone would need to work on the tooling if that is required.

Hope that helps,

-Alastair


From: lisa.seeman <lisa.seeman@zoho.com>
Sent: 20 February 2019 08:44
To: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
Cc: COGA TF <public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org>
Subject: Re: WCAG 2.2 survey

my problem is with accepting the WCAG_2.2_Success_criterion_acceptance_requirements<https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_2.2_Success_criterion_acceptance_requirements>
 that is part of this proposal

it seems to me unreasonable and resistant to dealing with change- things  like :
1.     Be feasibly testable through automated or manual processes, i.e. take a few minutes per page with current tools.
IE if a new tool is needed  it is rejected!

- even if making a new tool or change to a tool would take a day of a good programmers time!

This is the
All the best

Lisa Seeman

LinkedIn<http://il.linkedin.com/in/lisaseeman/>, Twitter<https://twitter.com/SeemanLisa>



---- On Tue, 19 Feb 2019 11:45:53 +0200 Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com<mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com>> wrote ----

Hi everyone,

I just wanted to point out the WCAG 2.2 survey this week:
https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WCAG22_yesno/


We’re looking for a decision on whether to do a WCAG 2.2 before CSUN so that we can proceed with the charter and get things going, or not. The survey is this week, if that is positive there will be a CFC just before CSUN.

If it goes ahead, we’d be looking for some people from the COGA TF to work on the potential SCs with other members of the AGWG in a small group or groups. That would be in the March-April-May timeframe.

Please let me know if you have any questions. If there are aspects to the decision you’d like everyone to consider, then the survey is a good place to put them.

Cheers,

-Alastair

--

www.nomensa.com<http://www.nomensa.com/> / @alastc