Re: Task testing structure

Hi Chuck,

Any conformance model that seeks to deliberately exclude problematic
content (or that facilitates that option), using a "not critical" argument,
is still completely missing the point (never mind that it *WILL* be gamed).

Looking at your second use case:

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.

[image: image.png]


*Susan (a low vision user) is a mother of three primary school aged
children, who, after 6 weeks of COVID-19 Shelter In Place, is climbing the
walls (she loves her kids, but needs a break...). One of her children is
also a special needs student who has mobility issues.Susan decides one
night to order pizza for dinner, and is able to successfully place her
order online. While waiting for it to be delivered, one of her sons notes
there is a "game" on the "Corner Pizza" web site. Susan decides she'll let
the kids play with that game until dinner arrives - she's going to go put
her feet up for 10 minutes. 5 minutes later however she is confronted with
a crying child, who, because of their mobility issue, cannot play the game
with their siblings. Susan encounters these types of situations routinely,
and spends the next 15 minutes consoling her child, who still doesn't
understand why they made a game he can't play. I mean, he's a kid too,
right?*


*Digital equality MUST extend beyond mere function.* Your perception of
this game as simply a marketing exercise to drive traffic, and not core to
the *business* requirements misses the fact that other people will access
content for completely different reasons, and in this use case, the
importance of that game being accessible is far greater for Susan and her
mobility impaired child.

But, because of the way the proposed conformance model was allowed to
exclude that pizza game, and yet still claim that the site is "accessible",
it flies in the face of the facts in front of her. Susan files a complaint
with  "Corner Pizza", who still maintain they are "conformant" according to
the rules. They feel badly for Susan, but the game will only be online for
another 3 weeks, and "legally" they don't have to do anything about it: it
was never designed to be accessible, and *"...was always considered
"non-core" content anyway"*.

I recognize that anyone who wants to game the system will go ahead and do
so, but I come up short in wanting to provide that very same opportunity
directly in our specification. I accept that the current conformance model
in WCAG 2.x is at the page level (the Web page) and that this is today a
bit of an issue, however I was also led to understand that one of our goals
in Silver was to have a more realistic conformance reporting mechanism that
worked at the "site" level, rather than at the page level.

But in my opinion, it has to be the "whole site" (or at least an *accurate*
representative sampling for those sites that grapple with scale - like
Amazon) - which is where selective choosing would come into play (assess at
least two examples of each of these 5 common templates that contain
differing content). But to allow sites to deliberately exclude a directory
or section of the site?... That's an open invitation to avoid
responsibility.

At the end of the day, I'm hard pressed to determine the difference between
excluding content and excluding people: *exclusion *is happening, and
*exclusion
*is the direct opposite of *inclusion*, which I believe to be our shared
goal.


Respectfully

JF

On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 3:11 PM Charles Adams <charles.adams@oracle.com>
wrote:

> 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
>
>
>
>

-- 
*​John Foliot* | Principal Accessibility Strategist | W3C AC Representative
Deque Systems - Accessibility for Good
deque.com