Re: "we should not allow user testing in exceptions" (was Re: clarifing the debate)

Hi John,

Fair point or not, I don't at this point feel the need to go thru 
another CFC that allows or does not allow user testing in situation x, 
or to limit it under exception y. I'm not fully clear on the implication 
of doing such a thing, nor am I clear on the reason why we might. You 
seem to be, which is cool :-)

My main concern at the moment, is that we cannot make user testing a 
requirement in 2.1. End of story. However, I don't want to wrangle our 
spec to stop people from testing or imply that that cannot do it under 
situation A or B. People can test all they like, in any situation, if 
they wish to as far as I'm concerned.

As I stated - at the moment, I feel I just don't fully grok some of the 
points being made here but even with that aside - the original CFC was 
clear IMO.

Thanks

Josh



> John Foliot <mailto:john.foliot@deque.com>
> 15 February 2017 at 15:58
> Chairs,
>
> Lisa has a fair point.
>
> Can I request that a second CfC go out that explicitly states that "we 
> should not allow user testing in exceptions" - for the same reasons 
> that user-testing for conformance was rejected?
>
> This way we can be sure that the consensus has been recorded properly 
> and accurately, and everyone understands what they are registering 
> their position on.
>
> Thanks.
>
> JF
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> John Foliot
> Principal Accessibility Strategist
> Deque Systems Inc.
> john.foliot@deque.com <mailto:john.foliot@deque.com>
>
> Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion

-- 
Joshue O Connor
Director | InterAccess.ie