Re: Task testing structure

>
> 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?


Exactly, we could instead define conformance scope as purely per-task and
discard the notion of a collection of tasks as a definition of a complete
thing. That'd follow the WCAG 2.x per-page model, while allowing people to
optionally put several together to declare a larger scope, just like WCAG
2.x does today. It wouldn't have any aspect of conformance itself implying
declaration of a full scope of an "entire" thing, but merely a collection
of small things. To write it out for comparison:

WCAG: 5.3 Conformance Claims (Optional)
<https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#conformance-claims>
Conformance is defined only for Web pages. However, a conformance claim may
be made to cover one page, a series of pages, or multiple related Web pages.


Potential adapting to:

Conformance Claims (Optional)
Conformance is defined only for tasks. However, a conformance claim may be
made to cover one task, a series of tasks, or multiple related tasks.


I think (if I better understand your concern, John) this should address the
case of someone having their conformance claim imply that it covers all of
example.com or MyAwesomeApp, while only defining and testing a subset of
tasks wiithin that conformance claim?

Thoughts?

(Chuck wrote, as I had this drafted:)

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...


"Transparent", which came to mind from the Silver requirement for providing
broad support to the regulatory environment
<https://w3c.github.io/silver/requirements/index.html#regulatory-environment>.
Not necessarily public, but if someone says their thing conforms and then
needs to show their conformance claim,

-Shawn

P.S. Separately from scope itself, we'll definitely need to work out
non-interference, what does "task" mean and can we have a better word, etc.
The agenda item we didn't get to in today's call.

On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 4:11 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
>
>
>
>