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

Josh wrote:

> My main concern at the moment, is that we cannot make user testing a
requirement in 2.1. End of story.


Josh, I am in complete agreement with you, and it appears that it is also
the majority position of most active members of this Working Group. In the
interest of completeness and fairness however, we owe it to all members of
this Working Group (including members of the COGA TF) that when we issue a
CfC, that it is clear, unambiguous and complete. I cannot help but note
with irony that this discussion emerged around the larger SC of "Clear
Language", and if nothing else, I would suggest that a CfC concerning this
proposed SC be, itself, clear to all. I will further suggest that may not
be the case today.


Jason wrote:

> If it comes to another CfC, I’ll be supporting a position that disallows
such exceptions: whether content conforms or not should be decidable
without having to engage in user testing.


Jason, that is and would be my position as well.

Lisa has suggested that this was not explicit in the original CfC, and a
re-reading of the CfC confirms that while many of us understood the CfC to
limit user-testing for both conformance AND exceptions testing, a) that is
not what the CfC states, and b) at least one member of this working group
interpreted the CfC to leave this exception out of the CfC. For this reason
alone, I am proposing that we either re-write the original CfC to ensure
greater clarity, or that we issue a second CfC to address this unintended
gap.

The CfC states: "User testing is not a required part of a manual testing
process for WCAG test criteria."

Proposed
​revision
: "User testing is not a required part of a manual testing process for
WCAG *success
or exemption* test criteria.”

JF

On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 10:48 AM, White, Jason J <jjwhite@ets.org> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> *From:* John Foliot [mailto:john.foliot@deque.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 15, 2017 10:59 AM
>
> 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?
>
> *[Jason] Exceptions are part of conformance, and I would interpret the
> prior CfC as excluding exceptions in normative text of WCAG that depend on
> undertaking user testing.*
>
>
>
> *If it comes to another CfC, I’ll be supporting a position that disallows
> such exceptions: whether content conforms or not should be decidable
> without having to engage in user testing.*
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or
> confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual for whom
> it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received this e-mail
> in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute, or
> take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and delete
> it from your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited.
>
> Thank you for your compliance.
> ------------------------------
>



-- 
John Foliot
Principal Accessibility Strategist
Deque Systems Inc.
john.foliot@deque.com

Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion