Re: WCAG 2.3 v 3.0 - was RE: XR Subgroup Update [April 27th 2021]

> Done well, the effect of *accounting* for subjectivity (that will always
be present) is that it smooths out the results, and you get a closer
agreement between testers overall.

That has not been my experience. People having a different understanding of
what a success criterion means is a far more common cause of variations in
test results than them disagreeing about if some alt is good enough a
description for an image, or other subjective things like that.

One of the most common time sucks I deal with in my job is people reporting
that when they did two tests for which they expected to see the same
results, get slightly different numbers. I'm definitely not looking forward
to consultants spending 20% of their time explaining why that 3.52 average
on page X is a 3.48 in the new test, even though page X didn't change.



On Thu, Apr 29, 2021 at 11:40 AM Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
wrote:

> JonA wrote:
> > > Folks seem to associate non-binary score with subjectivity.  There is
> > > already subjectivity in WCAG today
>
> Patrick wrote:
> > ... heresy! *grins*
>
> It's a good point to bear in mind.
>
> Even in (seemingly) simple cases like alt text, an image can have alt text
> that may or may not have " equivalent purpose".
>
> Currently that would mean different testers have to choose between pass
> and fail, which makes the end result look wildly different.
>
> With categories / rating / percentages within guidelines, the difference
> between category 2 & 3 out of 4 (or between 50% and 60%) does not look as
> different.
>
> Done well, the effect of *accounting* for subjectivity (that will always
> be present) is that it smooths out the results, and you get a closer
> agreement between testers overall.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> -Alastair
>


-- 
*Wilco Fiers*
Axe-core product owner - Facilitator ACT Task Force - Co-chair ACT-Rules