Re: Partial conformance

I'm glad you brought this up.  I think we need to look at all the use 
cases where organizations make a good-faith effort to make their site 
accessible and it still has problems.  If we have a list of use cases, 
we can address them.

"Substantially conforms" came out of the Silver research where companies 
had a generally accessible site, but it was so large or updated so 
quickly that it wasn't possible to guarantee that it was 100% 
conformant.  Facebook was an example of a site that was literally 
impossible to test because it was updated tens of thousands of times per 
second.

"Tolerance" is a different concept of a less-than-ideal implementation 
but no serious barriers.  I think we could collect those "less than 
ideal" examples when we write the tests for the user need.  How we would 
we flag them as "less than ideal" and refer people to better methods 
seems like a solvable problem.

"Accessibility Supported" is another slice of this problem, where 
organizations code to the standard, but it doesn't work because of some 
bug or lack of implementation in the assistive technology. We have 
discussed noting the problem in the Method, and then tagging the Method 
for the assistive technology vendors to know they have a problem, or 
make it easy for SME's to file bugs against the AT (or user agents, or 
platforms, etc.)

Are there other use cases we should consider?

On 4/10/2019 1:47 AM, Detlev Fischer wrote:
> I think “substantially conforms” would be good to have to reflect implementation reality and reward those who work hard to get their stuff accessible but have to live with some issues they cannot fully bring in line, so thumbs up for this one. It is the inverse of the concept of “tolerances” which has been around for some time.
>
> For most SCs one can describe situations where implementation is less then perfect but no serious issues exist. Would it be too arbitrary to collect a compendium of such cases per SC as a kind of example-based benchmark (which might be regularly updated to reflect new techniques)? The problem of course in documenting such slack is that it might invite implementors to do things that they shouldn’t. Might still be helpful to build consensus in WG around assessments of ‘tolerance’ or ‘substantially conforms’.
> Detlev
>
> Sent from phone
>
>> Am 09.04.2019 um 17:16 schrieb Jeanne Spellman <jspellman@spellmanconsulting.com>:
>>
>> We want to do "substantially conforms" (partial conformance is a different concept and we want to keep them separate).
>

Received on Friday, 12 April 2019 13:25:53 UTC