- From: Katie Haritos-Shea <ryladog@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2021 09:34:25 -0400
- To: John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>
- Cc: Wilco Fiers <wilco.fiers@deque.com>, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>, "w3c-wai-gl@w3.org" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAEy-OxFjeZKhL8=2sieeT2XRBjcJ3QaR+Bv7JbVbrNRpb+D-Nw@mail.gmail.com>
Then perhaps we need a complete re-think of what 3.0 is to be - by the AG. ** 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 Thu, Apr 29, 2021 at 8:58 AM John Foliot <john@foliot.ca> wrote: > Wilco writes: > > > 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. > > a HUGE +1 > > JF > > On Thu, Apr 29, 2021 at 6:53 AM Wilco Fiers <wilco.fiers@deque.com> wrote: > >> > 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 >> >> >> > > -- > *John Foliot* | Senior Industry Specialist, Digital Accessibility > > "I made this so long because I did not have time to make it shorter." - > Pascal "links go places, buttons do things" >
Received on Thursday, 29 April 2021 13:34:44 UTC