W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-silver-editors@w3.org > September 2020

Edits for review

From: Rachael Bradley Montgomery <rachael@accessiblecommunity.org>
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2020 21:41:58 -0400
Message-ID: <CAL+jyY+Yd=EaAMGD1aKr_eswncdOGo-vY4AVUE+ZU+SDe3_rNQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Silver Editors <public-silver-editors@w3.org>
Please see https://github.com/w3c/silver/pull/168/files

Things to check:

   - I revised the requirements section to be a goals section, moved the
   list of requirements out and moved some of the content from the editor's
   not into the section
   - I revised the editor's note in Evaluation scope to address the scaling
   and 3rd party content.
   - I've drafted a note to Peter below

*Draft Note to Peter*

Peter - I believe we have addressed all your comments with the pull
request at https://github.com/w3c/silver/pull/168/files

1. Challenge #1: Scaling Conformance Verification
"... Fundamentally, the problem is the result bar – it doesn’t allow some
pages in the sample to fall below the Bronze (or whatever metal) bar.
“Substantially conformant” may do this – it remains to be seen because we
haven’t defined it.  The current editor’s note draft doesn’t cite /
paraphrase this scaling challenge."

I believe that you will find the system as designed does account for this.
As the path or set of views tested increases, so does the tolerance for
errors across the set that are not critical failures. f you assume that
larger sites will have a larger set of paths and sample pages, the system
naturally allows errors and still reaching bronze conformance.

That said, I revised the editor's note in evaluation scope to reference the
scaling issue.

Challenge #2: Large, complex, and dynamic websites may have too many
changing permutations to validate effectively
Dynamically generated sites, where the page content is always generated by
software and viewing ‘n’ by user ‘a’ is likely to be slightly different
than viewing ‘n+1’ by user ‘a’, let alone viewings by user ‘b’, means we’re
entirely in the realm of software development (vs. content development),
and all software has bugs.  We do not certify that software is bug free.
Just that we’ve tested it to the best of our abilities, and found it “good
enough to ship”.  But someone somewhere may find a bug we missed.
 “Substantially conformant” may do this – again remains to be seen since we
haven’t defined it.  And again, the current editor’s note draft doesn’t
cite / paraphrase this second challenge of *highly dynamic *sites (sites
that are basically software).

We are addressing this by recommending the addition of dynamic in the Scope
requirement and by the editor's note in evaluation scope.

Challenge #3: 3rd party content
PFPWD says nothing about 3rd party content, or statements of partial
conformance (other than, by implication, that can be omitted from the
claim).  PFPWD should either also note that we intend to address what
conformance means in the context of 3rd party content, or cover it by

I've also added this to the note in evaluation scope.

Challenge #4: Non-Web Information and Communications Technologies
As we know that regulators want to use WCAG for non-web technology, and a
key goal of Silver (as noted in PFPWD) is to help relators adopt WCAG 3,
failing to make note of this is a miss.

Non-web technology is incorporated throughout including in the goals
section added as well as the VR methods. We have worked to remove as much
web centric terminology as possible. Where we have used wording that seems
overly web centric, we would appreciate your pointing it out.

Rachael Montgomery, PhD
Director, Accessible Community

"I will paint this day with laughter;
I will frame this night in song."
 - Og Mandino
Received on Wednesday, 16 September 2020 01:42:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 16 September 2020 01:42:26 UTC