Re: Task testing structure

>
> In compliance with the standard required by a law does mean that they are
> making a WCAG Conformance Claim.


Very true, I hadn't caught that distinction in your previous point. In that
case, I don't know of any.

-Shawn

On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 2:25 PM Katie Haritos-Shea <ryladog@gmail.com> wrote:

> In compliance with the standard required by a law does mean that they are
> making a WCAG Conformance Claim.
>
> ** katie **
>
> *Katie Haritos-Shea*
> *Principal ICT Accessibility Architect*
>
>
> *Senior Product Manager/Compliance/Accessibility **SME*
> *, **Core Merchant Framework UX, Clover*
>
>
> *W3C Advisory Committee Member and Representative for Knowbility *
>
>
> *WCAG/Section 508/ADA/AODA/QA/FinServ/FinTech/Privacy,* *IAAP CPACC+WAS
> = **CPWA* <http://www.accessibilityassociation.org/cpwacertificants>
>
> *Cell: **703-371-5545 <703-371-5545>** |* *ryladog@gmail.com
> <ryladog@gmail.com>* *| **Seneca, SC **|* *LinkedIn Profile
> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/katieharitosshea/>*
>
> People may forget exactly what it was that you said or did, but they will
> never forget how you made them feel.......
>
> Our scars remind us of where we have been........they do not have to
> dictate where we are going.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 1:15 PM Shawn Lauriat <lauriat@google.com> wrote:
>
>> John wrote:
>>
>>> If we really are moving away from page-level conformance to 'site-level'
>>> conformance "score" (no longer just pass/fail), then I assert our spec
>>> needs to be very clear with any exclusion criteria, as well as how the
>>> conformance is scoped - in the conformance statement itself.
>>
>>
>> I've proposed a model that wouldn't allow exclusion, as it wouldn't have
>> a concept of a whole "site-level" to exclude from, just as WCAG today
>> defines conformance claims. Would that model work?
>>
>> Not every site is 'task' or 'interaction' driven - they may also be 100%
>>> 'push' content (Joe's Blog, with commenting turned off)
>>
>>
>> The task: read Joe's Blog posts or a specific post. Maybe find out how to
>> get in touch with Joe via email. Tasks don't necessarily require
>> interactive controls.
>>
>> Katie wrote:
>>
>>> Please if you are aware of any government regulations that are requiring
>>> WCAG Conformance Claims, I'd love to hear about them.
>>
>>
>> I only know of one off the top of my head, The State of California
>> requires "compliance" with WCAG
>> <https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB434> (at
>> about the level of readable as John notes for conformance claims, so I've
>> bolded the most applicable bit):
>>
>> 11546.7. (a) Before July 1, 2019, and before July 1 biennially
>> thereafter, the director of each state agency or state entity, as defined
>> in subdivision (e) of Section 11546.1, and each chief information officer
>> appointed under Section 11546.1, shall post on the home page of the state
>> agency’s or state entity’s Internet Web site a signed certification from
>> the state agency’s or state entity’s director and chief information officer
>> that they have determined that *the Internet Web site is in compliance
>> with Sections 7405 and 11135, and the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
>> 2.0, or a subsequent version, published by the Web Accessibility Initiative
>> of the World Wide Web Consortium at a minimum Level AA success criteria.*
>> (b) The Director of Technology shall create a standard form that each
>> state agency’s or state entity’s chief information officer shall use to
>> determine whether the state agency’s or state entity’s Internet Web site is
>> in compliance with the accessibility standards specified in subdivision (a).
>>
>>
>> -Shawn
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 8:12 PM Katie Haritos-Shea <ryladog@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I'll just note that there are no regulators that I know of who are using
>>> or requiring WCAG Conformance Claims.
>>>
>>> Please if you are aware of any government regulations that are requiring
>>> WCAG Conformance Claims, I'd love to hear about them.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Apr 28, 2020, 6:12 PM John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Shawn writes:
>>>>
>>>> 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?
>>>>
>>>> Well, putting aside the fact that I understand you aren't 'happy' with
>>>> the term Task here either... (perhaps "interaction"?) my thoughts are still:
>>>>
>>>>    - Not every site is 'task' or 'interaction' driven - they may also
>>>>    be 100% 'push' content (Joe's Blog, with commenting turned off)
>>>>
>>>>    - The language still feels kind of slippery - it still lets the
>>>>    owner decide what is more critical or important for all end users, but also
>>>>    empowers them to exclude some content from some users without even making
>>>>    an effort. It's akin to me establishing my own speed limit on the highway
>>>>    (which I understand is actually a thing on the Autobans of Germany
>>>>    <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autobahn>). This will benefit
>>>>    site-owners at the cost to site users I fear.
>>>>
>>>>    - If we really are moving away from page-level conformance to
>>>>    'site-level' conformance "score" (no longer just pass/fail), then I assert
>>>>    our spec needs to be very clear with any exclusion criteria, as well as how
>>>>    the conformance is scoped - in the conformance statement itself.
>>>>
>>>>    - Any "exemption rules" need a real grounding in logic and
>>>>    feasibility - it cannot just be because the site owner doesn't think it's
>>>>    in scope. (I mean, they can think anything they want, but then there is the
>>>>    law...) As I noted on today's call, we're going to need regulators to pick
>>>>    up our specification if we *really* want it to be effective (beyond a
>>>>    collection of Best Practices), and so we need to ensure we are as
>>>>    unambiguous as possible in this regard.
>>>>
>>>> However Shawn, yes, this is my concern: "*...having their conformance
>>>> claim imply that it covers all of example.com <http://example.com/> or
>>>> MyAwesomeApp, while only defining and testing a subset of tasks within that
>>>> conformance claim?*"
>>>>
>>>> Part of the problem is that 'conformance statements' are about as dry
>>>> to read as click-through EULA's, and most site visitors won't know what is
>>>> or isn't in or out of scope. And I cannot think of a more frustrating
>>>> scenario for a PwD than to be told that the section of the site *they* want
>>>> to access - Chuck's Pizza Game(TM) - is out of scope for the
>>>> accessibility conformance thing, so "too bad".
>>>>
>>>> Additionally, as we transition away from black or white (aka Pass/Fail)
>>>> to a more realistic long-tail score (the million shades of gray between
>>>> black and white), the scoring *should* allow for partially but not fully
>>>> conformant content to exist on the site - but at a cost to the overall
>>>> score (i.e. "you're losing points there bud..."). Allowing site owners to
>>>> self-exempt will drive up scores, but do little for end users.
>>>>
>>>> JF
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 4:32 PM Shawn Lauriat <lauriat@google.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> *​John Foliot* | Principal Accessibility Strategist | W3C AC
>>>> Representative
>>>> Deque Systems - Accessibility for Good
>>>> deque.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>