Re: CFC - Publish new draft of WCAG-EM

Additional note on 4.4.3 Step 4.3: Compare structured and random sample 
sets:

The process sugested here seems a bit weird. If a discrepancy is found 
the evaluator is basically ask to re-do the representative sample. I our 
way of working this should happen during step 3.2 Include a randomly 
seected sample set rahter than necessitate a comparison between the two 
samples segments during evaluation. My understanding is that results for 
all SCs need to be recorded also for the randomly sampled views, just 
like for the represntatively sampled views. So I think the sample to 
work on should be determined before the actual evaluation starts. If 
aspects are discovered that indeed deviate form the representative 
sample, they should just be recorded. The recommendation "go back and 
augment your representative sample" leaves open why then the random 
views should still be included at all. Can they then be dropped? For 
many complex sites, it is illusory to find all potential issues 
completely covered by the representative sample. So if each finding in a 
randow view that was not already evident in the representative sample 
needs a return to the sampling stage, this sounds potentially very 
laborious and potentially recursively acruing an ever expanding effort. 
Do you need to add new random pages after you have made your random page 
part of your representative sample?

I think the assumption must be that the representative sample defined in 
step 3 is sound, and random pages in step 4 then just add a bit of 
spread (e.g. to cover editoral issues). To recur to step 3 in step 4 
seems daunting.

Not sure if I should change my +1 to -1, but I think overall it is fine, 
and I leave it to you to include or reject my recommendations.


Am 14.01.2026 um 17:42 schrieb Alastair Campbell:
>
> Call For Consensus — ends 21st January 2026 at midday Boston time.
>
> The request is to publish the draft of WCAG-EM 2.0 
> <https://w3c.github.io/wai-wcag-em/>.
> There is a Diff of the component markdown files 
> <https://github.com/w3c/wai-wcag-em/commit/0ec06bb41aeece3f4b533a85a12a845305700767>. 
> There is not a diff between the two final documents as the differences 
> in format would make it much harder to use.
>
> No issues were raised after the previous call in December. 
> <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2025OctDec/0075.html>
> To support the CFC please reply to the group with a “+1”.
>
> If you have concerns about this proposed consensus position that have 
> not been discussed already and feel that those concerns result in you 
> not being able to accept this decision, please reply with a “-1” and 
> explanation before the CfC deadline.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> -Alastair
>
> -- 
>
> Alastair Campbell
>
> *Director of Accessibility*
>
> E: _alastair.campbell@thisisgain.com_
>
> _<https://thisisgain.com/>_
>

-- 
Detlev Fischer PhD
IAAP Web Accessibility Specialist (WAS)
DIAS GmbH (Testkreis is now part of DIAS GmbH)

Telefon: +49-40-43 18 75-25
Mobil: +49-157 57 57 57 45
E-Mail:fischer@dias.de

http://www.dias.de
Beratung, Tests und Schulungen für barrierefreie Websites