Are there limits to the accessible component template approach?

[sajkaj]

Alastair Campbell on October 15 commented on:
[https://w3c.github.io/wcag/conformance-challenges/#challenge-2-large-complex-and-dynamic-websites-are-always-under-construction](Challenge #2)
Does this relate to things like design/component systems? (E.g. React, web components). I wonder if testing could be done at the component level, and then automated testing across the site to check they are used
correctly?

[sajkaj]

Merging issues 938, 948, and 949 here as they also address this issue.

In 938 Detlev Fischer (IE) on October 14 commented on the
https://w3c.github.io/wcag/conformance-challenges/#introduction
To the extent that changes / updates re-use the same building blocks, these blocks can be targeted / quality-controlled and kept accessible. So frequent changes in themselves do not necessarily mean that new content
may be inaccessible - is is a design choice what constraints are imposed on content and how well-managed the intrinsic accessibility of components used for new content is. Even end user generated content can be
largely accessible if sufficiently templated - and WCAG Failures may be quite limited (e.g., using an online comment editor to turn something in a subheading using All CAPS or from a toolbar, having a list
'marked up' with hyphens etc.).

Several commenters contributed to 948:
Detlev Fischer on October 14 commented on:
[https://w3c.github.io/wcag/conformance-challenges/#challenge-3-3rd-party-content](Challenge #3)
It can also provide / mandate user input templates (e.g. define a meaningful heading, require alt text of uploaded images) to constrain the well-formedness of user-generated content to some degree? Most of the issues
coming from this corner seem comparatively minor compared to faults with navigation, with dynamic widgets / focus handling, form markup & error handling etc.
|| ||
For third parties in terms of advertisers, the site owner can publish and enforce entry criteria (e.g. "we only accept ad animation no longer than 5 secs OR a control to stop it"). My guess is that it is profit
interests, not technical limitations, that may stop site owners from imposing such third-party content rules.
|| ||
Alastair Campbell on October 14 commented:
I think the guidelines need to stay neutral about what entity would be responsible, all they can evaluate is whether the interface for the user is accessible. In the UK/EU responsibility comes from the
legislation/regulations, the guidelines are the measure.
|| ||
Jake Abma on October 15 commented:
is it always up to third parties? Great example is the BBC which provides accessibility guidance for third parties they MUST follow or otherwise be excluded.
|| ||
Alastair Campbell on October 15 commented:
That is to be encouraged, but some locations have laws that define it, so we shouldn't.

And in 949 Detlev Fischer on October 14 commented on:
[https://w3c.github.io/wcag/conformance-challenges/#challenge-2-large-complex-and-dynamic-websites-are-always-under-construction](Challenge #2)
I would argue that if a page consists largely of self-contained building blocks and a strategy is in place to quality control these building blocks (say, will a any pop-up get and trap focus, and on closing, return
focus to the trigger?) those permutations should not create serious accessibility issues? I'd be interested in large site case exampes where permutations make it in principle impossible to conform in the WCAG 2.X
sense. (I can see issues around consistent heading structure when building blocks are re-used in different contexts since the outline algorithm did not take off, but those issues are unlikely to be show-stoppers -
there are probably techn. solutions to that?)

[sajkaj]

Please see the second paragraph, "not present in this initial draft ..." at Additional Background.