Re: Task testing structure

>
> ...now has to go to court and explain why they thought that game wasn't
> important for disabled people?


Exactly. And now the court and those involved have clear documentation for
how the pizza place considered accessibility and can then look at the
resulting impact to users. Everyone today with WCAG 2.x's conformance model
has that same ability to just declare a path or a page as not a part of
what needs to conform for a given conformance claim, so I don't think this
concept introduces any new ways for people to get things wrong there.

By giving people the ability to define their own scope as groups of user
journeys, and users a way to identify gaps in that scope that affect them,
I think transparent task-based conformance can better support both sides of
that while also offering a structure for test results to have a better
chance of expressing the resulting experience for users trying to do things.

-Shawn

On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 2:27 PM John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com> wrote:

> Hi Shawn,
>
> > Following that example of the pizza place site: they may have left a
> pizza game out of their scope of conformance, judging it not a part of
> their core offering of pizza. If someone has a problem with the pizza game
> and raises that as an issue preventing them from getting pizza, everyone
> then has the clear scope that left the game out, and whoever [was] involved
> in the decision...
>
> ...now has to go to court and explain why they thought that game wasn't
> important for disabled people?
>
> *Re: Scoping*
> The ability to cherry-pick what is and isn't out of scope is a
> dangerous precedent/concept, and will have (I fear) detrimental effects for
> persons with disabilities. Why wouldn't a "pizza game" be of interest to
> disabled users as well? Why shouldn't they also get to play along? Because
> making the pizza game accessible is too hard? - wrong answer...  (I recall
> our colleague and friend Victor Tsaran once saying to me - and I paraphrase
> - that today it's relatively easy to make sites 'accessible', but he could
> hardly wait for the day when they were also "fun" - this from back when he
> was still at Yahoo!, and they included an Easter Egg on the Yahoo! site:
> https://youtu.be/xXNkP2jU7Pg)
>
> Selective Accessibility MUST be avoided, not encouraged, and I fear your
> use-case is an example of why we shouldn't be leaving scoping to the
> content owners (and also demonstrates how easy it will be for uninformed
> content creators to miss the forest, because we've got them looking at -
> and selecting - specific trees...) Using the same logic, I could also argue
> that content in an <aside> isn't really critical to the main content (which
> MUST be accessible) - that's why it is an aside - and so any content in an
> <aside> is then out of scope? Slippery slope ahead.
>
> JF
>
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 12:36 PM Shawn Lauriat <lauriat@google.com> wrote:
>
>> Many good questions!
>>
>> I'm kinda liking aspects of this approach (ACT Rules format for testing
>>> flows), but (of course) I have a critical question: *how do we score
>>> something like this?*
>>
>>
>> Honestly, I'd like to think through that as a separate thing to figure
>> out from the topic of scoping and task definition, though still heavily
>> related. We could end up with any number of scoring systems using the same
>> scoping and task definition. Trying to figure them out at the same time
>> just introduces too many variables for me.
>>
>> As I described it to Jeanne recently, I have this kind of thought about
>> how we could define scope and tasks, I have a clear-ish sense of how we can
>> build up tests for methods, but still have only murky ideas on how we can
>> get the two to meet in the middle. We've certainly made some good progress
>> on that, but we still definitely have further to go.
>>
>> Open question: is this a correct interpretation? Does all critical path
>>> testing need to start from a common starting point?
>>
>>
>> A really good question, and one that honestly depends on the site or app
>> (etc.). For a pizza site, you can link directly to the contact page. For an
>> app like Google Docs, you can't really link directly to text substitution
>> preferences, so that'd need to come from a more common start point. We
>> should help walk people through how to define and include this in scope,
>> definitely, as the accessibility of a thing doesn't really matter if you
>> can't get access to it in the first place.
>>
>> Additionally, how do we ensure that all critical path testing is scoped
>>> by any given site? (the current scoping proposal leaves it to the
>>> site-owner to scope their conformance claims, so leaving out complex or
>>> critical flows that are non-conformant could be easily overcome by simply
>>> leaving those flows out of the testing scope).
>>
>>
>> I don't think we need to. If we have a clear definition of how to scope,
>> and a way for people to transparently declare that scope, we can leave the
>> "is this right?" part to those who need to decide it. Following that
>> example of the pizza place site: they may have left a pizza game out of
>> their scope of conformance, judging it not a part of their core offering of
>> pizza. If someone has a problem with the pizza game and raises that as an
>> issue preventing them from getting pizza, everyone then has the clear scope
>> that left the game out, and whoever involved in the decision as to whether
>> the scope should include the game can make it in an informed way.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Shawn
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 12:20 PM John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Shawn
>>>
>>> I'm kinda liking aspects of this approach (ACT Rules format for testing
>>> flows), but (of course) I have a critical question: *how do we score
>>> something like this*?
>>>
>>> Each site(1) is going to have "critical paths" but few sites will be
>>> sharing the same critical paths. Additionally, some paths or tasks (find
>>> hours of operation) are significantly easier to do then others (update my
>>> emergency contact information on my companies HR intranet), especially if
>>> it pre-supposes that *all* paths start at a site's "homepage" (and/or the
>>> outcome or solution to Success Criterion 2.4.5 Multiple Ways - i.e. a
>>> sitemap page or search results page).
>>>
>>> No matter which, it seems to me that testing a critical path needs to
>>> start *somewhere*, and for a scalable and repeatable testing regime, about
>>> the only thing all sites have in common is a 'homepage', which is something
>>> your example already suggests:
>>>
>>>
>>>    1. Load the pizza restaurant's site
>>>       1. Possible inputs: found via search engine, hit a bookmark link,
>>>       selected from browser's history, etc.
>>>       2. *Main page loads* with focus at the top of the screen
>>>
>>> Open question: is this a correct interpretation? Does all critical path
>>> testing need to start from a common starting point?
>>>
>>> Additionally, how do we ensure that *all *critical path testing is
>>> scoped by any given site? (the current scoping proposal leaves it to the
>>> site-owner to scope their conformance claims, so leaving out complex or
>>> critical flows that are non-conformant could be easily overcome by simply
>>> leaving those flows out of the testing scope).
>>>
>>> JF
>>>
>>>
>>> (1: site being an euphemism for 'online digital activity or presence' -
>>> as we need to take XR and other emergent tech into account as well)
>>>
>>> On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 10:28 AM Shawn Lauriat <lauriat@google.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> From an email I sent to some ACT folks a little while ago, where I had
>>>> tried expressing my thoughts on how we could use the same kind of structure
>>>> that ACT has, but as a way of essentially expressing overall scope as a set
>>>> of user journeys for task based testing. Hoping this can help for
>>>> tomorrow's conversation to have an example written out:
>>>>
>>>> For ACT rules, Link has accessible name
>>>> <https://act-rules.github.io/rules/c487ae> applies
>>>> <https://act-rules.github.io/rules/c487ae#applicability> to any HTML
>>>> element with the semantic role
>>>> <https://act-rules.github.io/rules/c487ae#semantic-role> of link that
>>>> is included in the accessibility tree
>>>> <https://act-rules.github.io/rules/c487ae#included-in-the-accessibility-tree>
>>>> . Link in context is <https://act-rules.github.io/rules/5effbb>
>>>> descriptive <https://act-rules.github.io/rules/5effbb> essentially
>>>> applies to any element that passes Link has accessible name
>>>> <https://act-rules.github.io/rules/c487ae>. In other words:
>>>>
>>>>    1. For each thing exposed in the accessibility tree as a link
>>>>       1. Go through Link has accessible name
>>>>       <https://act-rules.github.io/rules/c487ae> steps
>>>>       2. For each link that fails, note result
>>>>       3. For each link that passes
>>>>          1. Go through Link in context is
>>>>          <https://act-rules.github.io/rules/5effbb>descriptive
>>>>          <https://act-rules.github.io/rules/5effbb> steps
>>>>          2. For each link that fails, note result
>>>>
>>>> For tasks, even if simply in Education & Outreach type documentation,
>>>> we could walk people through the process of defining tasks and the steps
>>>> within each task similar to how the ACT Rules Format
>>>> <https://www.w3.org/TR/act-rules-format/> describes composite rules
>>>> and the atomic rules within each composite.
>>>>
>>>> The scope of a pizza restaurant's site could then have the definition
>>>> of a collection of tasks, the level at which they could/would measure
>>>> overall conformance:
>>>>
>>>>    1. Choose what kind of pizza to order from the available options
>>>>    2. Find out the hours of operation
>>>>    3. Find out how to get to the restaurant to dine in
>>>>    4. Contact the restaurant to order delivery
>>>>
>>>> Each task could consist of atomic actions, typically defined by design,
>>>> development, and testing activities. For task 2. Find out the hours of
>>>> operation, that could look like:
>>>>
>>>>    1. Load the pizza restaurant's site
>>>>       1. Possible inputs: found via search engine, hit a bookmark
>>>>       link, selected from browser's history, etc.
>>>>       2. Main page loads with focus at the top of the screen
>>>>    2. Navigate to contact page (composite, describes one possible path)
>>>>       1. Move focus to site navigation menu
>>>>       2. Open navigation menu
>>>>       3. Move focus to "Contact us" link
>>>>       4. Activate link
>>>>    3. Navigate to text containing the hours of operation (composite)
>>>>       1. Find "Hours of operation" section
>>>>       2. Read contents of "Hours of operation" section
>>>>
>>>> Within the steps of each atomic task bit, we could then run through the
>>>> applicability checks for each ACT-type Rule. So Link has accessible
>>>> name <https://act-rules.github.io/rules/c487ae> would apply to all
>>>> links within the path, but not to a random link in the footer that has a
>>>> label that doesn't imply any relation to hours or contact information.
>>>>
>>>> I have thoughts about how each of these could work and how we would
>>>> define applicability of rules and such based on the tasks, but I think it
>>>> would make sense to just start with this higher-level question of whether
>>>> we could (or should) have some kind of structured task definition similar
>>>> to ACT's current structured rule definition.
>>>>
>>>> -Shawn
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> *John Foliot* | Principal Accessibility Strategist | W3C AC
>>> Representative
>>> Deque Systems - Accessibility for Good
>>> deque.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
> --
> *John Foliot* | Principal Accessibility Strategist | W3C AC Representative
> Deque Systems - Accessibility for Good
> deque.com
>
>
>