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

These conversation threads are overwhelming.

I find it extremely difficult to participate from the demands on my time, but far more so by the structure and inferred tone. To have a large distribution with individuals replying to different select points from different select individuals non-sequentially is near impossible to track.
For that, I would recommend a convention that named or enumerated the original proposal and the direct responses to it.

Tangent

To have a large distribution of brilliant and passionate people disagree with each other is a good thing. But the position one holds becomes more clear than the individual points and their merit in context with the proposal.

A point was raised on subjectivity and the fact that different evaluators will draw different conclusions. That has been obvious for the entirety of the guidelines. It was also proven by research conducted very early in Silver, which provided the insight that when any two accessibility experts (high degree of domain knowledge) conducted an evaluation, the highest degree of overlap in their conclusions was 80%. That insight along with the lived experience that several have voiced in this thread seems to have lead the group to believe that is a bad thing and that we must somehow achieve a higher amount. In my opinion and experience, the insight is a wonderful and very useful thing which reveals the complexity of human needs.

Hypothetical scenario: evaluator A believes something meets or passes a criterion; evaluator B does not. That could mean {n} number of things, which of course would include the “different understanding of the criterion”. All of those {n} things are valid, as is the conclusion.

As the entire purpose of the guidelines is to help ensure the absence of barriers, if any individual evaluator or end user interprets or experiences a barrier, then it should be accepted as one by any other individual that did not. If a single person among the sum of humanity is prevented from an action that they have a basic human right to take, it matters.

So in the hypothetical scenario, the conclusion of evaluator B wins.

Response

Back to what I believe the origin of thread to be, and as I have understood it, John Foliot proposed:
Stay focused on all of the moving parts
Create a mechanism to [more quickly] add a new testable requirement into our larger effort
As a group produces something that is testable, it should be considered as soon as possible without first deciding what version of the document it should align with.

I applaud and +1 to both points as I have understood them.

Thanks,

Charles Hall

Senior Accessibility Designer
Invited Expert, W3C AGWG & Silver TF
Chair, W3C IDIW CG
Member, Ferndale Accessibility & Inclusion Advisory Commission

> On Apr 29, 2021, at 9:34 AM, Katie Haritos-Shea <ryladog@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 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 <tel:703-371-5545> | ryladog@gmail.com <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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"