Re: Notes re a roadmap to reaching consensus

>  Can you please help me understand then how this inherent bias is being overcome? It seems to my thinking that *any* issue could elevate to 'critical' to at least one group of users - or at least a sub-set of that group.

Did you read the issue severity presentation?
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1agb_XbMzroRtbscmDIMH1BxqZgDdWymqoxvLESN1LJA/edit#slide=id.g13832c96f03_1_0

Any issue could be critical for a (sub) group of users in some circumstances, but it is also true that some issues are more likely to be critical than others across circumstances.

What the sub-group proposed was a process where each test was assessed for likely impact by a variety of people, and mapped against the function need groups.

Note that there are two (not mutually exclusive) proposals, the first is doing this assessment per test, and the second proposal was a post-testing process to incorporate context.


> however that only applies to remediation: in new development isn't the goal to avoid issues in the first place? And from that perspective, it shouldn't matter on severity level - it impacts some users so don't do whatever it is that is generating the error condition in the first place.

I agree, but do all new developments try to achieve AAA at the moment? There does need to be some form of prioritisation or we’ll have less nuance than WCAG 2.

We’re trying to develop a better “ruler” (measuring stick), which means having more nuance. It is also part of working on the requirements<https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag-3.0-requirements/#oppotunities_conformance> for measurable guidance.

Cheers,

-Alastair