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

Re: Task testing structure

From: John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2020 08:32:47 -0500
Message-ID: <CAKdCpxx1KCuGxwQ8M-brYdGQHSffwKNcTw2zsd3rMvrUZNf7dQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
Cc: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, Silver TF <public-silver@w3.org>
Alastair writes:

> Could you clarify how that is different from the current situation?

For example, the 2.x conformance model allows the conformer to specify what
is in/out of scope based on web pages. Processes need to be dealt with as a
unit, but according to the spec, you *choose* URIs to conform.


If we want to continue to make conformance claims per-page (which is the
current model), then you are correct. But I also was under the presumption
that we were moving from a "per-page" conformance model to a "site-wide"
conformance "score". In that model, it is important to scope both the good
and the bad.

Assuming you have 10 "perfect" pages and 5 "horrible" pages, is your score
10/10 or 10/15?  If *I* get to set the scope, I'll exclude the 5 problem
pages as "non-critical" and bump my score to 10/10 - problem solved and who
cares about the users who cannot get to those other 5 pages... it's just a
pizza game or crossword puzzle after all...

And if you don't think that won't happen, I have a wonderful bridge for
sale in San Francisco...

JF

On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 8:17 AM Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
wrote:

> Hi John,
>
>
>
> Could you clarify how that is different from the current situation?
>
>
>
> For example, the 2.x conformance model allows the conformer to specify
> what is in/out of scope based on web pages. Processes need to be dealt with
> as a unit, but according to the spec, you *choose* URIs to conform.
>
>
>
> As we all know, in practice laws (at least in the UK/EU) assume all pages
> (or don’t specify), and we come to some sort of sampling method, to get
> coverage and provide some confidence across larger sites.
>
>
>
> My point is: Should the standard be defining coverage? Or would it be
> better to make the same sort of assumptions as 2.x and leave it to
> regulators to say whether a site should cover all tasks, or what the
> sampling is?
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> -Alastair
>


-- 
*​John Foliot* | Principal Accessibility Strategist | W3C AC Representative
Deque Systems - Accessibility for Good
deque.com
Received on Tuesday, 28 April 2020 13:33:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:31:47 UTC