Re: Notes re a roadmap to reaching consensus

Contexts are important but I don’t know how we can judge them 

The question I have here is

If I am an author and want to pass a WCAG requirement,   
and passing or failing depends on a context to be determined by a tester, 
how will I ever know if I pass or fail?  
What tester?   
What will they decide the context is?    
Is there a master list of contexts that lists every one - so I can look mine up to see how it will be tested?    

Is the context of this requirement the same for all users? 
 e.g. if a user is blind, and cannot see somethings on the page, does it change the context / importance of others?  
 If so do I use that context? 
 Or all contexts for all people with disabilities? 

Might be just my problems but I can’t quite wrap my mind around it.  

Can you give me / us more to help understand exactly?

Thanks  



> On Oct 11, 2022, at 5:16 AM, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Sailesh,
>  
> > “So context is addressed via non-normative techniques”
>  
> I think that maybe context is too wide a word in this topic. What I had meant by context was: What is the impact on the user’s task if there is a particular accessibility barrier in the way?
>  
> That leads onto your second point:
>  
> > “Often there are images (and sometimes CSS ones) with promotional messages or instructional text  that are not available to vision impaired users without suitable alternative text.”
>  
> In the first proposal from the issue-severity sub-group the severity/impact was assessed at the test-level (under the guideline / outcome level), and it would have to be an aggregate, high-level view of the severity. That approach does have the problem you describe, it cannot account for the meaning of that content in context.
>  
> The second proposal (less explored but had good support at the TPAC meeting) was to evaluate each barrier in context. For example, if the promotional message (not conveyed by alt-text) was missing for all users, what would the impact be? 
>  
> As David said: “ It might be easier for stakeholders closer to the content to provide priorities then for us (WCAG) to provide them”.
>  
> Personally, I think it needs to be a combination, each method/test should provide guidance for its potential impact, and then a manual review provides your metric / prioritisation. That also aligns with current practices. How much is baked into the standard is then the question.
>  
> These are things to be explored in the issue-severity sub-group, which will then report back to the full AG group.
>  
> Kind regards,
>  
> -Alastair
>  
>  
>  
> From: Sailesh Panchang <sailesh.panchang@deque.com>
> Date: Tuesday, 11 October 2022 at 02:45
> To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: Notes re a roadmap to reaching consensus
> 
> Couple of comments based on above exchanges:
> 1. About context: Techniques for WCAG are generally organized by the
> situation they apply to. In other cases, their description indicates
> when a particular technique is most appropriate.
> So context is addressed via non-normative techniques that can be
> accessed as technology / environment evolves without need to write /
> enhance SCs. This is in line with GV's  comments above.
> 2. GV writes: "This is where I have the problem.    Why is it assumed
> that a functional button is always more important than a content
> image".
> Indeed I said that to myself. Often there are images (and sometimes
> CSS ones) with promotional messages or instructional text  that are
> not available to vision impaired users without suitable alternative
> text.
> Thanks,
> Sailesh
>