Re: Extension conflict/compatibility requirement

I think the important thing is that the human testers are knowledgeable
about WCAG success Criteria... lots of accessibility professionals disagree
on what is accessible. However, when I travel among my peers, I see a high
correlation among those of us who are knowledgeable in WCAG Success
Criteria, of what passes and what does not pass. The stuff we disagree on
regarding pass/fail of a success criteria is in the margins.


Cheers,

David MacDonald



*Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*

Tel:  613.235.4902

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

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 9:42 PM, Hoffman, Allen <allen.hoffman@hq.dhs.gov>
wrote:

> 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
>
>
>
> *Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*
>
> Tel:  613.235.4902
>
> LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>
>
> 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> 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 <detlev.fischer@testkreis.de>>*
>> wrote ----
>>
>> Am 28.10.2015 um 16:17 schrieb Gregg Vanderheiden <
>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>