- From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
- Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2021 22:38:16 +0100
- To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
On 12/08/2021 22:01, John Foliot wrote: > So yes, I am proposing that we only "measure and score" that which can > be accurately and uncontroversially measured and scored; that as a goal > we seek to squeeze outthe known subjectivity we currently have in WCAG > 2.x even further, and that we avoid at all costs adding more > subjectivity to the scoring and conformance Just tangentially on this particular point then, considering that even a seemingly simple SC like 1.1.1 in WCAG 2.X requires a huge amount of subjective and contextual analysis from an auditor (and two auditors may still disagree in the end) once you move beyond a binary "has an alternative / doesn't have an alternative" and into "but is the alternative actually appropriate/sufficient/comprehensive" ... I have my own doubts that this could ever be properly achieved going forward. Unless you remove all instances where a human has to make a value judgement, and reduce all guidelines to purely technical/mechanistic ones (which yes, will then be nice and unequivocal, but also won't have much relevance to a user's actual experience when using the content). But yes, I'm sure that industry/big players would love this sort of mechanistic approach that can be applied at scale by just running something through Axe or Lighthouse or whatever. Or something that can just be remediated by putting a mechanistic plaster/overlay on top of an existing site. P -- Patrick H. Lauke https://www.splintered.co.uk/ | https://github.com/patrickhlauke https://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | https://www.deviantart.com/redux twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
Received on Thursday, 12 August 2021 21:38:31 UTC