RE: Error correction (Processes)

Hi Alastair,

I believe that the scenario of a standardized, computer adaptive test falls into the "essential category" and because an adaptive assessment adjusts item difficulty level as a student progresses, the availability of a mechanism to review/correct before finalizing submission would be problematic. In that case, any changes to previously entered responses would alter subsequently presented test items and affect test difficulty.

Justine



From: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2020 4:21 PM
To: Pascalides, Justine E ( JPASCALIDES ) <JPascalides@ETS.ORG>
Cc: WCAG list (w3c-wai-gl@w3.org) <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject: RE: Error correction (Processes)

Hi Justine,

The definition we have for essential is quite functionality focused:

"if removed, would fundamentally change the information or functionality of the content, and information and functionality cannot be achieved in another way that would conform"

Where we have used essential and activity in WCAG previously, it is generally where the function is essential, and the activity would be invalidated.

I'm trying to think through this version:
"A mechanism is available for reviewing, confirming, and correcting information before finalizing the submission, unless the information cannot be modified due to being essential to the activity."

However, phrased like that the SC appears to be useless as information you enter is usually "essential to the activity". It is restricting the modification that is the issue.

What I'm also struggling with is what scenario isn't covered by the logical/security/privacy aspects outlined in the understanding document.

Is there another scenario you can highlight?

Kind regards,

-Alastair




From: Pascalides, Justine E ( JPASCALIDES ) <JPascalides@ETS.ORG<mailto:JPascalides@ETS.ORG>>
Sent: 14 July 2020 20:11
To: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com<mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com>>; WCAG list (w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>) <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>
Subject: RE: CFC - Add "Error correction (Processes)" to WCAG 2.2 draft

-1

I remain concerned with the scope of the exceptions in the current text, and I would prefer to have the language adjusted to include "essential to the activity". It seems that we are missing the mark on some legitimate exceptions that are not covered with the latest wording. I do not think that we need to remove the current exceptions as much as add a clarification that scope includes scenarios that fall into the "essential" category.

Best,
Justine

From: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com<mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com>>
Sent: Friday, July 10, 2020 5:51 AM
To: WCAG list (w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>) <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>
Subject: RE: CFC - Add "Error correction (Processes)" to WCAG 2.2 draft
Importance: High

Apologies, that was the wrong PR link, it should be:
https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/1157<https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fw3c%2Fwcag%2Fpull%2F1157&data=02%7C01%7CJPascalides%40ETS.ORG%7Ca7aa069ca0ac42c0075108d82833635c%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C637303548461300149&sdata=kqfFJcpicZofkYafPXcWf%2FR7A%2BNnX6J8QUwvJIqAViE%3D&reserved=0>


From: Alastair Campbell


Call For Consensus - ends Wednesday July 15th at midday Boston time.



The Working Group has discussed adding the new SC "Error correction (Processes)" to the WCAG 2.2 draft:

https://www.w3.org/2020/03/25-ag-minutes.html#item03<https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2020%2F03%2F25-ag-minutes.html%23item03&data=02%7C01%7CJPascalides%40ETS.ORG%7Ca7aa069ca0ac42c0075108d82833635c%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C637303548461310104&sdata=9QJE1HJ1HxEP56Y4W3f7n5Poby9M8bZreDVKilb9Adw%3D&reserved=0>



The changes, preview of the documents, and survey link are detailed in this pull request:

https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/1046<https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fw3c%2Fwcag%2Fpull%2F1046&data=02%7C01%7CJPascalides%40ETS.ORG%7Ca7aa069ca0ac42c0075108d82833635c%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C637303548461320061&sdata=F5cE8sxMMezYqQTRhAm4WSIxPq7gZnS68fvGoSFPETQ%3D&reserved=0>



If you have concerns about this proposed consensus position that have not been discussed already and feel that those concerns result in you "not being able to live with" this decision, please let the group know before the CfC deadline.

Kind regards,

-Alastair

--

www.nomensa.com<https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nomensa.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7CJPascalides%40ETS.ORG%7Ca7aa069ca0ac42c0075108d82833635c%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C637303548461320061&sdata=ScHiSsj8OUqCh8BS2VF5Vds5XHDpYYarItZMRiu7v3M%3D&reserved=0> / @alastc


________________________________

This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual for whom it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute, or take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and delete it from your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited.


Thank you for your compliance.

________________________________

________________________________

This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual for whom it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute, or take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and delete it from your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited.


Thank you for your compliance.

________________________________