W3C

Site Navigation

Nearby

Results of Questionnaire Accept Test Types PR

The results of this questionnaire are available to anybody.

This questionnaire was open from 2022-09-09 to 2022-09-12.

13 answers have been received.

Jump to results for question:

Comments and Concerns to include into a draft editor's note
Update the testing section with the new content

1. Comments and Concerns to include into a draft editor's note

Please review the editor's note at the top of the Testing section. Are there any additional comments, questions or concerns you wish to include in an editor's note for this exploratory content?

Details

Responder	Comments and Concerns to include into a draft editor's note
Shawn Lauriat
Laura Carlson
Jennifer Strickland	Very well-outlined! Thank you for all the obvious hard work.
John Rochford
Poornima Badhan Subramanian
Michael Gower	I'd like to see some language explaining that a way to increase computational tests is to parse more subjective outcomes into more tests, some of which can use nominal values to judge. I outlined one example of this during a presentation when I talked about the idea of requiring a short alternative for all non-decorative images, and then a more descriptive alt for images that are marked as 'important' (which its own guidance for how to assess). Obviously this can't be addressed merely by testing, but relies on scoping the requirements so that different aspects of an outcome can be independently assessed. But to avoid a chicken-and-egg problem, I think flagging the discussion from both testing and requirements perspectives can help keep this in the forefront. For the qualitative test examples, I could not easily find "the set of expectations and exceptions limit the scope of decisions, to minimize variation of test results arrived at by different testers", at least not in the concrete way I was expecting. I may not have dug far enough (Link is descriptive is a fairly long page) but I think maybe the examples need to spell out expectations more succinctly.
Mary Jo Mueller	None.
Stefan Schnabel
Gundula Niemann	I feel the point on defining the test types should not be dropped yet. Are there frurther test types which need to be added? Is the current definition appropriate? Understandable?
Jeanne F Spellman	We continue to explore including variations of user journey testing, but this is not yet ready for inclusion.
Makoto Ueki	None.
Jaunita George
Rachael Bradley Montgomery

2. Update the testing section with the new content

Do you support updating the testing section of the editor's draft with PR 657? The content is currently exploratory.

Summary

Choice	All responders
Choice	Results
Yes, update the content and keep it as exploratory	8
Yes, update the content and move it to developing	3
No, Please explain and suggest an alternate direction for exploration in comments	2

Details

Responder	Update the testing section with the new content	Comments
Shawn Lauriat	Yes, update the content and move it to developing
Laura Carlson	Yes, update the content and keep it as exploratory
Jennifer Strickland	Yes, update the content and keep it as exploratory	The PR includes the following language associated with protocols: Protocol-based requirement: Using accepted industry protocols that meet defined quality criteria (examples include Usability and Plain Language protocols) to improve accessibility. I acknowledge this work is exploratory. I do have a question about "accepted industry protocols" within the summary of the PR — what industry would this be limited to? Could other industries potentially provide useful, acceptable protocols? No need to reply to my comment directly. I assert that we have the potential to learn from other industries and others doing similar work and those guidelines, standards, and protocols could benefit accessibility.
John Rochford	Yes, update the content and move it to developing
Poornima Badhan Subramanian	Yes, update the content and keep it as exploratory	The testing types are defined clearly and this will be a great addition to WCAG 3. I see there are many open questions to explore before moving to development. IMO, keeping exploratory until many of the questions are addressed would help to plan the scope, identify relevant materials, and eliminate any late questions that take us back to the start of the conversation.
Michael Gower	Yes, update the content and keep it as exploratory
Mary Jo Mueller	Yes, update the content and keep it as exploratory	Consider editing the statement, "The outcome is written so that testers can test the accessibility of new and emerging technologies that do not have related methods based solely on the outcome," to instead read: "The outcome is written so that testers can test the accessibility of new and emerging technologies based solely on the outcome, even when methods do not yet exist for those technologies." Otherwise some could misread that "based solely on the outcome" belongs with the "related methods".
Stefan Schnabel	No, Please explain and suggest an alternate direction for exploration in comments	I don't get whey the new requirement variants (Prescriptive requirement etc.) have been added. This is nowhere explained.
Gundula Niemann	No, Please explain and suggest an alternate direction for exploration in comments	From reading it does nt become clear whether the new setup with 2 test types and 4 requirement types result in: multiplied out, that is 8 types; added, that is 6 types; all mentioned test types from part of the prescriptive requirements, which results in 5 types and causes the question, why the test types are defined separately. The direction in which the test approach goes should become clear form the text.
Jeanne F Spellman	Yes, update the content and keep it as exploratory
Makoto Ueki	Yes, update the content and keep it as exploratory
Jaunita George	Yes, update the content and move it to developing
Rachael Bradley Montgomery	Yes, update the content and keep it as exploratory	I would like to see the wording change from requirements to types of methods.

More details on responses

Shawn Lauriat: last responded on 9, September 2022 at 14:37 (UTC)
Laura Carlson: last responded on 9, September 2022 at 15:07 (UTC)
Jennifer Strickland: last responded on 9, September 2022 at 15:56 (UTC)
John Rochford: last responded on 9, September 2022 at 17:25 (UTC)
Poornima Badhan Subramanian: last responded on 9, September 2022 at 20:11 (UTC)
Michael Gower: last responded on 9, September 2022 at 22:04 (UTC)
Mary Jo Mueller: last responded on 10, September 2022 at 00:02 (UTC)
Stefan Schnabel: last responded on 12, September 2022 at 12:19 (UTC)
Gundula Niemann: last responded on 12, September 2022 at 12:33 (UTC)
Jeanne F Spellman: last responded on 12, September 2022 at 13:16 (UTC)
Makoto Ueki: last responded on 12, September 2022 at 14:08 (UTC)
Jaunita George: last responded on 12, September 2022 at 17:24 (UTC)
Rachael Bradley Montgomery: last responded on 12, September 2022 at 17:54 (UTC)