Re: CFC: Manual testing processes

I'm open to looking at including user testing and other inclusive design 
methodologies in AG 3.0 and do hear what you are saying Wayne but this 
is just beyond the scope of 2.1 IMO.

Josh

> Wayne Dick <mailto:wayneedick@gmail.com>
> 16 February 2017 at 05:00
> -1
> Our testing methodology has not proven to be as reliable as we think. 
> I think there may be cases where user testing is necessary.
>
> We are not making success criteria to make life easy for developers or 
> auditors. We are removing barriers.
>
> We have a year and a half before this is released. I think it is time 
> for accessibility auditors to include user testing when no other 
> reliable testing method exists to assess the presence of a barrier.
>
> There are reliable small sample testing techniques. Accessibility 
> auditors should learn them.
>
> Wayne
>
>
> Andrew Kirkpatrick <mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>
> 14 February 2017 at 03:19
> Call For Consensus — ends Wednesday February 15th at 10:30pm Boston time.
>
> The requirements for WCAG 2.1 SC's 
> (https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_2.1_Success_Criteria have been 
> discussed at length. Included in the requirements is #2, which states 
> "Be testable through automated or manual processes”, which indicates 
> that in order for a success criteria to be regarded as “testable” it 
> must be possible to determine whether a page passes that criteria 
> using automated or manual testing processes.
>
> On last Tuesday’s call the WG came to a resolution regarding this 
> item, specifically related to user testing. The group also surveyed 
> this question, and arrived at a unanimous agreement:
>
> "User testing is not a required part of a manual testing process for 
> WCAG test criteria.”
>
> This resolution indicates that if the only way to test a success 
> criteria is to conduct user testing, then that is not “testable” with 
> regard to WCAGT 2.1.
>
> The Working Group will recommend strongly in WCAG 2.1 (as it did in 
> WCAG 2.0) that user testing be conducted.
>
> For background:
> Call minutes: http://www.w3.org/2017/02/07-ag-minutes.html
> Survey: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/testing20170207/results#xq1
>
> If you have concerns about this proposed consensus position that have 
> not been discussed already and feel that those concerns result in you 
> “not being able to live with” this decision, please let the group know 
> before the CfC deadline.
>
> Thanks,
> AWK
>
> Andrew Kirkpatrick
> Group Product Manager, Standards and Accessibility
> Adobe
>
> akirkpat@adobe.com
> http://twitter.com/awkawk

-- 
Joshue O Connor
Director | InterAccess.ie