W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org > March 2019

Re: WCAG 2.2 acceptance criteria

From: Steve Lee <stevelee@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2019 08:38:11 +0000
To: public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org
Message-ID: <8cbe140a-df6f-b29b-015c-094229d9a416@w3.org>
[@Goodwitch nice to have you back ]

+1

That's crystal clear and seems fair.

I agree that some large pages, especially infinity scrollable ones, 
require testing shortcuts such as a sample of elements that represent 
possible the "styles". Otherwise any testing will hit realistic time 
constraints.

Nit: 'ELEMENT' might not be the right word given it's quite specific use 
in HTML. But I don't have a better suggestion; component is also overloaded.

Steve

On 07/03/2019 21:02, Glenda Sims wrote:
> Goodwitch magically appears after being MIA for weeks to say:
> 
> I suggest we clarify this bullet a bit more.  I think the example is a 
> useful example, but it isn't the only way to be "feasibly testable".  
> And the way the sentence is written, it is hard to parse/process.  So 
> what if we changed from this:
> 
>   * Be feasibly testable through automated or manual processes, i.e.
>     take a few minutes per page with tools available prior to Candidate
>     Recommendation stage.
> 
> To something like this:
> 
>   * Be feasibly testable in a "reasonable amount of time" through
>     automated or manual processes prior to Candidate Recommendation
>     stage.  Examples include:
>       o Automated - an automated testing tool exists that quickly and
>         accurately determines if the criteria is met or not.
>       o Assisted - a software tool exists that makes it more efficient
>         for a tester to accurately determines if the criteria is met or
>         not.
>       o Manual - a manual process exists that makes it possible for a
>         tester to accurately determines if the criteria is met or not.
> 
> note:  "reasonable amount of time" can be determined by a call for 
> consensus.
> 
> I'd suggest that if we pursue this "reasonable amount of time" 
> angle...that it be based on "reasonable amount of time" to test an 
> ELEMENT (not a page).  I think the variance in amount of time to test a 
> page (when pages can endlessly scroll) will make it impossible to come 
> up with a "reasonable amount of time" per page.
> 
> I'm not in favor of leaving the requirement as it is currently drafted 
> at 
> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_2.2_Success_criterion_acceptance_requirements 
> 
> 
> G
> 
> *glenda sims* <mailto:glenda.sims@deque.com>, cpacc 
> <http://www.accessibilityassociation.org/certification> | team a11y lead 
> | 512.963.3773
> deque systems <http://www.deque.com> accessibility for good
> 
> 
> On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 1:31 PM Delisi, Jennie (MNIT) 
> <jennie.delisi@state.mn.us <mailto:jennie.delisi@state.mn.us>> wrote:
> 
>     Hello,____
> 
>     Part of the concerns the COGA group discussed was that manual tests
>     are often required, and the variety of time required to test
>     different pages can vary greatly, depending on the content of that
>     page.____
> 
>     __ __
> 
>     One example we discussed was the current testing required to ensure
>     that the appropriate alt text is assigned for each image used on a
>     page. 1-2 images on a page, not a big deal to test. But, on a
>     catalogue page, it could be significant.____
> 
>     The question came down to the concept that there may be manual
>     testing that (at this time) may be the only way to truly ensure a
>     barrier is not met by individuals with cognitive disabilities. ____
> 
>     __ __
> 
>     I, too, work in an environment where a lot of testing occurs every
>     day. And, we have to hold contractors, vendors, and employees to
>     standards that can be measured. We need to be able to provide
>     detailed and consistent feedback when a failure of a success
>     criteria has been noted. The time taken to complete testing is
>     definitely important. But, consideration of barriers is the whole
>     goal, right? ____
> 
>     __ __
> 
>      From a matter of equality standpoint, why would the testing to
>     address the needs for one group be ok if it takes a lot of time,
>     because they got in on the creation of success criteria at the
>     beginning of the process; but for another group who’s needs were
>     addressed more thoroughly later in the development of success
>     criteria, manual testing that may sometimes require some time cannot
>     be considered?____
> 
>     __ __
> 
>     I would like to propose that the language about the time it takes to
>     complete a test have an exception process, or propose a rewording of
>     the time component, so that the barriers experienced by this group
>     of individuals with disabilities receives fair consideration in this
>     process.____
> 
>     __ __
> 
>     Jennie____
> 
>     __ __
> 
>     *Jennie Delisi, MA, CPWA*____
> 
>     Accessibility Analyst | Office of Accessibility____
> 
>     *Minnesota IT Services*|*Partners in Performance____*
> 
>     658 Cedar Street____
> 
>     St. Paul, MN 55155____
> 
>     O: 651-201-1135____
> 
>     /Information Technology for Minnesota Government/ | mn.gov/mnit
>     <http://mn.gov/mnit>____
> 
>     Minnesota IT Services Logo____
> 
>     Facebook logo <https://www.facebook.com/MN.ITServices>LinkedIn logo
>     <https://www.linkedin.com/company/mn-it-services>Twitter logo
>     <https://twitter.com/mnit_services>____
> 
>     __ __
> 
>     __ __
> 
>     __ __
> 
>     *From:*John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com
>     <mailto:john.foliot@deque.com>>
>     *Sent:* Thursday, March 7, 2019 11:26 AM
>     *To:* Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com
>     <mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com>>
>     *Cc:* lisa.seeman@zoho.com <mailto:lisa.seeman@zoho.com>; Delisi,
>     Jennie (MNIT) <jennie.delisi@state.mn.us
>     <mailto:jennie.delisi@state.mn.us>>; COGA TF
>     <public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org
>     <mailto:public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org>>; Silver TF
>     <public-silver@w3.org <mailto:public-silver@w3.org>>
>     *Subject:* Re: WCAG 2.2 acceptance criteria____
> 
>     __ __
> 
>     Hi All,____
> 
>     __ __
> 
>     To perhaps also put a finer distinction on it... W3C Process
>     mandates two independent implementations of whatever new technology
>     is being proposed - a testing activity we actually did last spring
>     during CSUN for the 2.1 Success Criteria (where, for SC 1.3.6 @ AAA
>     we actually used the implementations that Lisa had pointed us to).
>     Those implementations may or may not also serve as a 'testing tool',
>     but as the Silver discussion continues, a repeatable testing
>     methodology will need to surface for each new requirement, whether
>     that is via a tool (mechanical tests - see: ACT TF), or via a
>     'cognitive walk-though' or similar methodology (a process still to
>     be fully defined in Silver).____
> 
>     __ __
> 
>     At the end of the day, while it is true that our primary audience is
>     and will always be users with disabilities (of all stripes and
>     forms), a second important consideration is compliance requirements
>     mandated by legislation. To clear that hurdle, we will need to
>     ensure that both implementers and consumers have a baseline
>     measurable & impartial (non-subjective) "test", so that entities can
>     then claim conformance based upon the outcome of said test.____
> 
>     __ __
> 
>     JF____
> 
>     __ __
> 
>     On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 10:52 AM Alastair Campbell
>     <acampbell@nomensa.com <mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com>> wrote:____
> 
>         Hi Lisa,____
> 
>         ____
> 
>         > To meet new user needs we may need new tools and reviews may need to acquire new skills and knowledge.____
> 
>         ____
> 
>         Which is fine, perhaps we can clarify that it means available at
>         the time of publication?____
> 
>         ____
> 
>         New tools, especially if they “take a day” from a programmer
>         would need to be available at the time of publication, for the
>         reasons I outlined in the last email.____
> 
>         ____
> 
>         ____
> 
>         > Also new tools will come as soon as we know a SC will be accepted. in other word at CR. With WCAGs current history it will not come before then.____
> 
>         ____
> 
>         Can you point to a previous example? I.e. where a tool that
>         didn’t exist was required to meet an SC wasn’t available until
>         after CR? ____
> 
>         The closest I can think of is ARIA in WCAG 2.0, but it wasn’t
>         actually required to meet the SCs.____
> 
>         ____
> 
>         It is very difficult to deal something in CR which then has to
>         be pulled because no one has created a tool, the whole timeline
>         goes back a step. The way the W3C prefers to work is to have
>         working prototypes/code created prior to specs. This has been a
>         hard-learned approach [1].____
> 
>         ____
> 
>         I suggest that if an SC needs a tool, we work up the SC template
>         and go through the initial process. That could be accepted on
>         the condition that a tool will be available. If it does not
>         become available then the SC will be removed before CR.____
> 
>         ____
> 
>         It would also help to put those SC(s) first so people have more
>         time to work on the tools, I’ll make a note of that.____
> 
>         ____
> 
>         Cheers,____
> 
>         ____
> 
>         -Alastair____
> 
>         ____
> 
>         ____
> 
>         1] Accessibility example for what should be a ‘simple’ thing,
>         the naming algorithm.____
> 
>         https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/future-accname-spec-planning-strategy-functional-using-garaventa/
>         <https://gcc01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fpulse%2Ffuture-accname-spec-planning-strategy-functional-using-garaventa%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cjennie.delisi%40state.mn.us%7C2a94ca2523bb46a0bdd208d6a321fd94%7Ceb14b04624c445198f26b89c2159828c%7C0%7C0%7C636875763714627907&sdata=VCYgFIjR5CMjFxunizRlfRp8QYNbGpWZR8Sb6OmhcQI%3D&reserved=0>
>         ____
> 
> 
>     ____
> 
>     __ __
> 
>     -- ____
> 
>     *​**John Foliot* | Principal Accessibility Strategist | W3C AC
>     Representative
>     Deque Systems - Accessibility for Good
>     deque.com
>     <https://gcc01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdeque.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cjennie.delisi%40state.mn.us%7C2a94ca2523bb46a0bdd208d6a321fd94%7Ceb14b04624c445198f26b89c2159828c%7C0%7C0%7C636875763714637908&sdata=GG0O3iMQp%2F8PHf6p8EWzegAcg%2FBpQuuSttIJLwi6EbA%3D&reserved=0>____
> 
>     __ __
> 
Received on Friday, 8 March 2019 08:38:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:24:02 UTC