RE: Extension conflict/compatibility requirement

My experience both facilitating creating harmonized testing processes, and associated skills training does not agree.
The more accessibility pros  the more answers you get.


________________________________
From: David MacDonald
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2015 7:31:10 PM
To: lisa.seeman; WCAG
Cc: Detlev Fischer
Subject: Re: Extension conflict/compatibility requirement

WCAG is testable a number of ways. One way is that most professionals looking at a component could agree whether or not it fails. If we could not be reasonably sure of that, we would not proceed with approving an SC.


Cheers,

David MacDonald



CanAdapt Solutions Inc.

Tel:  613.235.4902

LinkedIn<http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>

www.Can-Adapt.com<http://www.Can-Adapt.com>



  Adapting the web to all users

            Including those with disabilities

If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy<http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>

On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 1:03 PM, lisa.seeman <lisa.seeman@zoho.com<mailto:lisa.seeman@zoho.com>> wrote:
Hi Detlev
Your point is very important we are trying to make the coga extension testable but  we can not be help to a higher standard then the original wcag 2.0. It does not seem we have a clear way of saying an SC is testable beyond having some testable sufficient techniques even though we agree that does not really make the SC testable.


All the best

Lisa Seeman

Athena ICT Accessibility Projects <http://accessibility.athena-ict.com>
LinkedIn<http://il.linkedin.com/in/lisaseeman/>, Twitter<https://twitter.com/SeemanLisa>




---- On Wed, 28 Oct 2015 18:15:37 +0200 Detlev Fischer<detlev.fischer@testkreis.de<mailto:detlev.fischer@testkreis.de>> wrote ----
Am 28.10.2015 um 16:17 schrieb Gregg Vanderheiden <gregg@raisingthefloor.org<mailto:gregg@raisingthefloor.org>>:
And having testable techniques does not make up for a non-testable SC.   You need to be able to determine if the SC is met - not if a technique use for some content on the page passes.

The thing is that there is no single test to determine if a SC is met, nor a finite set of tests (because techniques are not required, and new techniques to account for may emerge at any time - so in my view, this implies that conformance to a SC can never be established In a deterministic, fully replicable way (because this would require a fully operationalized, completely documented test procedure that can be exactly followed by anyone).

I hope this does not come across as trolling. I think it is important to set realistic expectations regarding the outcome of a11y testing of complex content, and to realize that a conformance check is often not completely objective. It includes common sense judgments that take on board both quality (attributing "not ideal" content instances to either "pass" or "fail", and assessing the a11y impact of issues found) and quantity (number of issues on a particular page).

Sent from phone

And having testable techniques does not make up for a non-testable SC.   You need to be able to determine if the SC is met - not if a technique use for some content on the page passes.