Is this a testability or conformance challenge?

[sajkaj]

Shawn Lauriat on October 11 commented on
[https://w3c.github.io/wcag/conformance-challenges/#challenge-1-specific-wcag-guidelines-success-criteria-expecting-human-involvement](Challenge #1:)
This seems much more of a testability challenge, rather than a conformance challenge. The same SCs in another conformance model would have the same scaling of human testers, no?
|| ||
Alastair Campbell on October 14 added:
True, but only on a per-site basis. I.e. The guidelines are necessarily flexible across sites and contexts therefore require human judgement to test.
However, if you say "This is our policy for X" (e.g. heading structure), that is much easier to test & verify.

• Has the page met our policy.
  • Yes = pass
  • No = human check or remediate.
    The alternative is to be very prescriptive with the guidelines, which would get huge push-back.
    || ||
    Detlev Fischer on October 14 added:
    That would not be needed if there is a tight control on the page's building blocks - the navigation, the page templates, the dialogs and popups, the forms etc.? So this seems a bit of a bogus argument.

[alastc]

Wondering if there is anything to change in the challenges doc for this?

The aspect of having an internal policy on "how to do things" is a potential solution.

Is there anything in the doc to change? (Aimed at @detlevhfischer and ShawnL)

[sajkaj]

Addressed with new document title; and in the second paragraph beginning: "Not present in this initial draft ..." at Additional Background.