Re: Notes re a roadmap to reaching consensus

Gregg Vanderheiden
gregg@vanderheiden.us



> On Oct 7, 2022, at 6:35 AM, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com> wrote:
> 
> >  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 <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.

I understand this -  but that still gets us into the "how many or how often"  to determine priority.

I think this is good for setting priority ORDER  — 
But am worried that we are using them for     Scoring or weighting(which also is just a subset of scoring)   where  you reach a score and win.   So  those things with low priority (fewer people or less often) don’t get done later - they don’t get done at all. 

>  
> 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.

This introduces CONTEXT again -  which I can’t figure out.   There are a bazillion contexts.   
If are going to specify contexts I would think they have to be major and would have to be in the SC - not in the test

>  
>  
> > 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.

I like where this is trying to go.    
a) But I think it would be useful to make it clear if we are talking about 'what it takes to conform"   
vs
b) What is the priority for things beyond what is required  
Vs
c) What is the priority for repairing failures to conform 

A lot of the angst I think comes from thinking that we are talking about  (a) when people are talking about  b or  c


I have also had several discussion where they start out talking about c (order of repair)  and suddenly it changes to  a)  doing the highest priority as part of conformance. 



>  
> Cheers,
>  
> -Alastair