Challenge #1 should be renamed

[awkawk]

Currently named: "Challenge #1: Specific WCAG Guidelines & Success Criteria needing Human Involvement"

I think that the challenge is better articulated in the text and I suggest rephrasing the title as:

Challenge #1: Scaling conformance verification

The fact that many SC require some measure of human verification is not a problem, it is a fact of life today. We weren't willing to accept a version of WCAG that is content with alt="something" or alt="" being used on img elements without equivalence being part of the SC, and that is to the benefit of users and the detriment of testing budgets (until AI/ML solves all of our image evaluation problems anyway!).

So the issue is ability to scale, given the current verification challenges. This brings in large sites, dynamic sites, 3rd party content, and the issue is scale.

This also shows up in the first paragraph and feels slightly off the mark:

In other words, too many existing accessibility success criteria expect informed human evaluation

It isn't that too many SC expect this, but that it is a lot of work. I suggest replacing this sentence and the two preceding it with the following:

HTML markup can be automatically validated to confirm that it is used according to specification, but a human is required to verify whether the HTML elements used are correctly reflecting the meaning of the content. For example, text on a web page marked contained in a paragraph element may not trigger any failure in an automated test, nor would an image with alternative text equal to "red, white, and blue bird", but a human will identify that the text needs to be enclosed in a heading element to reflect the actual use on the page, and also that the proper alternative text for the image is "American Airlines logo". Many existing accessibility success criteria expect informed human evaluation to ensure that the end users benefit from conformance.

Or something like that anyway...

[DavidMacDonald]

"In other words, too many existing accessibility success criteria expect informed human evaluation. "

I think this is a value judgement. In WCAG, a careful balance was struck between the needs of PWD and corporations was struck.
I think evaluation methodology provides a reasonable way to integrate human testing. It could end up being cited in courts as a statement by the AGWG that WCAG can't be met by large or complex sites.

[alastc]

The challenges are stated as though there is a flaw in having human review, which I disagree with. (Generally the solutions are likely to be based on sampling and/or process, rather than the core requirement.)

Each of the challenges has a flip-side, e.g.:

1. Relying on automated results would result in a poor experience.
2. Dynamic/personalised areas that don't get tested could be problematic. (In the real world we don't let people into the under-construction areas!)
3. 3rd party content is just moving the responsibility of certain content, and could open a loophole (e.g. for adverts under the EU directive).
4. Straying out of 'web' is a charter issue, that's another conversation.

We need to acknowledge there is another side to each of these issues.

Also, needs to be clear that the goal is still to provide a good experience for people with disabilities, just without the binary pass/fail that is applied to the whole site at once.

I can do a suggested PR if that helps?

[DavidMacDonald]

The document about challenges for large organizations contains some language that is value based and could be used against WCAG in legal proceedings.
https://w3c.github.io/wcag/conformance-challenges/

I've copied the text into a Google doc and made some comments.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lUTCNGbP-afvym_6XQkjT6ey_QgtfTATpi2Wv8ZuKlQ/edit?usp=sharing

[awkawk]

@DavidMacDonald we just got this out of a google doc. Please don't provide comments elsewhere.

[mraccess77]

I agree with @DavidMacDonald. We can't just limit accessibility standards to things that can be tested automatically today -- because that wouldn't be inclusive. That's like saying a medical professional will only run lab tests on you and won't talk to patients because it takes too much time to actually speak with a patient with a health issue.

I agree with @alastc that we need to be careful about what we say -- WCAG says that in many situations level AAA is not achievable and thus the WAI doesn't recommend it -- and that has ensured that almost no one goes after triple A with most customers not even touching a single AAA requirement. So AAA requirements have become completely overlooked by many organizations.

[jake-abma]

My 2 cents is that personally I did and do not agree completely with the contents of the document and the views as described, although I do understand the mentioned issues. At TPAC was the first time we've discussed it (as far as I remember) and I have expressed my concerns, even thought it was an assessment of opinions from people outside of the WG, not as an internal document.

Also think it would not be appropriate to publish it under the WCAG WG name without a survey and consensus if it will be published by the WG. The line of approach in the document should also be that this is what we received as feedback and concerns from public opinion, not per se our own view.

[alastc]

Hi @jake-abma,

As discussed yesterday, there are lots of issues to resolve, additions, changes. We're aiming for everyone to be happy putting this out, and will be going through the usual process.

[sajkaj]

Merging in comments from Issue 942 which seems on point here ...
i942.txt

[sajkaj]

Andrew's initial comment and suggested text is already in the Editor's Draft. Other points mentioned are either resolved or opened in topic specific issues. Therefore, I'm closing this issue. If someone thinks there's a point raised not covered in a specific issue elsewhere, please start a new issue--thanks!