RE: Finding HHello jennie,elp

I spoke with Rachael, and she offered the same explanation as you have.  I’m going to work with her on edits to the “intent” text to strategically replace some instances of “should” with “must”.

 

Regards,

Chuck

 

From: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com> 
Sent: Friday, April 17, 2020 6:42 AM
To: Chuck Adams <charles.adams@oracle.com>
Cc: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>; Delisi, Jennie (MNIT) <jennie.delisi@state.mn.us>
Subject: RE: Finding HHello jennie,elp

 

I’ll see if I can help based on my understanding…

 

> Based on that explanation, I still interpret this SC to be:  To easily find the help, it must be exist, and that this help MUST be human contact details, human contact mechanism, self-help, or chatbot.

 

Correct.

 

Perhaps the short-name isn’t triggering the right framing for you? It did morph a bit from ‘finding help’ to ‘consistent help’ (which may not be a good short-name, but all I can think of right now).

 

 

> I’ll pose a hypothetical and you can tell me what the results would be.  Suppose we have a site which consists of 3 web pages of some data entry, and has repeated blocks of content.  Suppose that this site is actively maintained but has no available help, and no access to the non-existent help.  

> Does this hypothetical site pass this SC or fail this SC?  And why?  

 

Fail, because it meets the scoping statements but does not provide a human (or fallback) help mechanism in a consistent place.

 

> Does it pass because there is no help which would require consistently placed access?  Does it fail because it doesn’t have any help at all?  Does it fail because it doesn’t contain help of any of the four listed styles?

 

Fails due to the lack of one of the mechanisms specified.

 

 

>  we need to reword the intent because the text says that such types of help “should” exist and not that one type of these four styles of help “must” exist.

 

Agree, so long as we agree the SC text first!

 

Cheers,

 

-Alastair