Re: Task testing structure

Shawn mentioned something in the W3C call that didn't get a lot of 
attention in call, was some system whereby the author defines the scope, 
and that scoping exercise (or process or determination) is open to the 
public (or I forget the words...) fully disclosable?  Discoverable?  He 
used a word or phrase...

I'm going to extend the use case of "Corner Pizza", and the game that's 
been mentioned.  I'm going to extend it to two games.

Game One:  Guess which celebrity most recently visited our shop and get 
$1 off your pizza order.

Game Two:  Web based Pizza Party!  Cook needs to create a series of 
pizzas correctly as orders speed up.  This web based game exists only to 
generate traffic, and is not necessary to order a pizza or to utilize 
any other "Corner Pizza" service.

In the case of Game One I think it should be scoped in, as there's a 
purpose with consumer impact for playing and "winning" the game.

If the business case for Game Two was just to attract web traffic to the 
site, I could see a case for the author wanting to scope that out.  The 
second game isn't a required step for ordering a pizza or any other 
service.  The author just wants to attract traffic in the hopes that the 
players decide to use the accessible ordering app to order something.

In the extended use case of "Corner Pizza", I would think that Game 
One's accessibility SHOULD impact the final score, and I would think 
that Game Two's accessibility could be argued to be irrelevant to the 
final score.  I also think that if there was some public facing 
information which documented that Game Two was scoped out of the score, 
reviewers would be able to determine that this "scope exclusion" was not 
intended to abuse any conformance model.  IF the content author also 
tried to scope out Game One, that could be perceived as an attempt to 
abuse the conformance model.

Regards,

Chuck


On 4/28/2020 7:42 AM, Alastair Campbell wrote:
>
> > I also was under the presumption that we were moving from a 
> "per-page" conformance model to a "site-wide" conformance "score".
>
> I’m not sure about that, but I thought there was a move from page to task.
>
> Given a move from page to task:
>
>     Should the standard be defining coverage? Or would it be better to
>     make the same sort of assumptions as 2.x and leave it to
>     regulators to say whether a site should cover all tasks, or what
>     the sampling is?
>
>     -Alastair
>