RE: After today's call (Comments to John Foliot's alternative scoring proposal)

> Remember, my proposal is for measuring conformance, NOT for measuring usability, which I argue cannot be measured at scale – ever.

I think that’s too binary, there is a continuum of possible checks. We currently have a range of ‘subjectiveness’ in the 2.x criteria, from the mechanistic (e.g. language of page) to ones which take a certain level of knowledge and subjective judgement.

Where I agree is that requirements which are affected a lot by context are best dealt with by process, or as you’ve called it the Protocols & Assertions (e.g. “Have you usability tested this and acted on the results? Yes/no”).

My main point for the guidelines is that they should correlate as closely as possible to the end-experience for people with disabilities. A purely mechanistic approach would not correlate very well. WCAG 2.x correlates reasonably well for most, but not all, disabilities. I hope we can improve on that in 3.x.

Cheers,

-Alastair