Read on Twitter
first skim over WCAG 3 and...i have questions. quite pointed ones. some of the example guidelines fill me with a "yeah, well, that's just your OPINION, man..." feel.
"common clear words". ok, cool. who decides what that actually means, authoritatively?
1/
"common clear words". ok, cool. who decides what that actually means, authoritatively?
1/
"Uses visually distinctive headings". who decides what is and isn't "distinctive" enough?
"Compare heading content with non-heading content. The size, weight, or spacing around headings should be larger..."
ok, cool. but...how larger/heavier/etc?
2/
"Compare heading content with non-heading content. The size, weight, or spacing around headings should be larger..."
ok, cool. but...how larger/heavier/etc?
2/
I get that this a very early draft, but...are you now going to backfill this with 100s of testable statements with semi-arbitrary values?
good lord. how long will an audit take now? 3 days per sample?
3/
good lord. how long will an audit take now? 3 days per sample?
3/
without actual testable metrics (not to do a binary pass/fail, but to at least give some form of benchmark for this rating we're then supposed to give for each guideline) ... we're going to have a fun few years arguing over whether something passes or fails
4/
4/
because sure, there's more nuance, no binary pass/fail...but at the end of the day, there still is a hard cut-off point/threshold: a site/app/whatever must get at least bronze / score of 3.5 or higher, or it fails WCAG 3.
5/
5/
i had high hopes that with a more nuanced evaluation method, i could finally stop ranting about the endless arguments and opinionated /subjective auditing stuff. but alas...
6/
6/
