Re: Measurability in Silver

I'm really enjoying this conversation!

As someone who works at a large company that pays a lot of attention to
accessibility, I'll offer that the last thing practitioners want is a WCAG
that's less definitive. In fact, some would prefer if WCAG was more
prescriptive!

Thanks!
Dale


On Fri, Nov 9, 2018, 6:53 PM Léonie Watson <tink@tink.uk wrote:

> On 09/11/2018 17:35, Jennison Asuncion wrote:
> > "We heard the complaint from several large innovative companies that
> they had  to remove features that improved accessibility from their
> applications because they didn't pass WCAG.  That's a problem."
>
> +1
>
> >
> > I've often heard the phrase something like: "it complies, but is it
> usable?"
>
> +1
>
> >
> > I think a key to Silver is that there is a level of flexibility built-in
> to avoid both of these situations.
>
> +1
>
> We've all seen things built to conform to WCAG, but which are
> effectively unusable in the wild.
>
> We all advocate for users to be included throughout the production
> lifecycle, and for the usability of a thing to be considered a defining
> metric for success.
>
> We know that trying to document the requirements for each user group
> (and every variation within each group), simply isn't possible - at
> least, not to the extent that it can be distilled into a usable set of
> criteria/guidelines.
>
> Ultimately, we know that someone's ability to use a thing is the real
> acid test.
>
> So making usability a success metric for Silver not only seems like the
> logical thing to do, it also feels like the responsible thing to do.
>
> Léonie.
>
> >
> >
> > Just my $0.02.
> > Jennison
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________________
> > From: Jeanne Spellman [jspellman@spellmanconsulting.com]
> > Sent: Friday, November 9, 2018 8:58 AM
> > To: public-silver@w3.org
> > Subject: Re: Measurability in Silver
> >
> > Charles raises a very important issue:  Can the qualitative result be
> accepted as a measurable “pass”?.  I am interested in what you think about
> it.  The example is link with no underline that fails 1.4.1 Color Alone (a
> common design pattern).   Should Silver accept the results of a test with
> users that found that a large percentage were able to identify that it was
> a link, even though it was only defined by the difference in color? Should
> that be a pass?
> >
> > Should tests with users be able to change the pass/fail of the
> guidance?  I think that's an important question that I don't know the
> answer to yet.  It gives an opportunity to for companies with innovative
> responses to accessibility to prove that their approach is more accessible,
> even if it is a technical WCAG failure.  We heard the complaint from
> several large innovative companies that they had  to remove features that
> improved accessibility from their applications because they didn't pass
> WCAG.  That's a problem.  Testing with users with disabilities is a
> potential solution. I saw a presentation at A11yBOS where the presenter
> showed some visual designs that passed WCAG that were inaccessible.
> Testing with users with disabilities could encourage companies to move away
> from technical conformance to WCAG that is still inaccessible and focus on
> what works for users.
> >
> > On the other hand, testing with users with disabilities can be small
> datasets.  They can be skewed toward one disability  or levels of
> expertise.  Potentially, it might be easier to game the system by who was
> being selected to participate in the study.  I have seen testing with
> people with disabilities that provided very valuable accessibility
> information that goes well beyond WCAG requirements.  But do I want that to
> override other conformance measures?  I'm interested in some new ideas that
> could help safeguard people from abusing the system.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 11/7/2018 9:45 PM, David MacDonald wrote:
> > I think most WCAG evaluators would not include  transient states that
> last a split second on inline links unless there was some added value.
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 12:36 PM Hall, Charles (DET-MRM) <
> Charles.Hall@mrm-mccann.com<mailto:Charles.Hall@mrm-mccann.com>> wrote:
> > Following up on today’s conversation.
> >
> > RE: Testing as Pass/Fail versus Measurability
> >
> > All (or at least most) of the feedback, comments, and opposition to a
> “measurable” approach seem to suggest or imply that measurable means a
> scale – for example, a score of 1–5.
> >
> > Some thoughts based on a specific example:
> >
> > Success Criterion 1.4.1 Use of Color (Level A)
> > Color is not used as the only visual means of conveying information,
> indicating an action, prompting a response, or distinguishing a visual
> element.
> >
> > Technique
> > Situation A: If the color of particular words, backgrounds, or other
> content is used to indicate information:
> > G205: Including a text cue for colored form control labels
> > Test
> > For any content where color differences are used to convey information:
> > Check that the same information is available through text or character
> cues.
> >
> > Interpretation
> > “…text or character cues” here is intended to describe the “visual
> means” as defined in the SC. So there is a simple pass / fail test that
> “the same information” [as color] is visible.
> >
> > Hypothetical scenario
> > Element is a link. The information and indication of action is “this
> text is a link”. It is blue text within a line of black text that is not a
> link. It is not underlined. Links are stateful. There is only 1 of 5 states
> where there is no second explicit visual means. In the default state, there
> is color alone. In the focus, active, hover and visited states there are
> additional visual affordances as well as the user agent providing a pointer
> cursor where there is a pointing input device. There is even a selected
> state, and a pseudo after element that includes content of an icon that
> conveys the link is external.
> >
> > So, “same information is available through text or character cues” is
> true in 4 states, but not true in 1. Does this fail? Under WCAG 1.4.1, it
> does. Under Silver, there may be other options. As a scale (as suggested at
> the beginning), this could earn a 4 of 5. However, that then requires an
> enumerated mark such as ‘3 or higher’ to qualify as passing. There is
> another option. What if the test question was “do people understand from
> any visual cues that this text is a link?” Then that question was answered
> by test participants that included 60 people with a wide spectrum of visual
> abilities and color deficiencies. If the result was 49 of 60 said “yes”,
> and 8 of 60 said “yes, if” or “yes, when” and 3 said “no”, there is clearly
> a new grey area or middle ground beyond simply scoring on a scale. The
> qualitative result is that it passed, while the quantitative result is that
> it scored high enough to pass if the enumerated mark or threshold was 51%.
> Can the qualitative result be accepted as a measurable “pass”?
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> >
> > Charles Hall // Senior UX Architect
> >
> > charles.hall@mrm-mccann.com<mailto:charles.hall@mrm-mccann.com
> ?subject=Note%20From%20Signature>
> > w 248.203.8723
> > m 248.225.8179
> > 360 W Maple Ave,<
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmaps.google.com%2F%3Fq%3D360%2BW%2BMaple%2BAve%2C%2BBirmingham%2BMI%2B48009%26entry%3Dgmail%26source%3Dg&data=02%7C01%7Cjasuncion%40linkedin.com%7C450a6dc8b219476a491008d64664cdec%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636773796110147851&sdata=HFtm78nsGk2bfj%2FYpklFlO2YWhEEU4JS9CSqNzk%2FsMs%3D&reserved=0>
> Birmingham MI 48009<
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmaps.google.com%2F%3Fq%3D360%2BW%2BMaple%2BAve%2C%2BBirmingham%2BMI%2B48009%26entry%3Dgmail%26source%3Dg&data=02%7C01%7Cjasuncion%40linkedin.com%7C450a6dc8b219476a491008d64664cdec%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636773796110147851&sdata=HFtm78nsGk2bfj%2FYpklFlO2YWhEEU4JS9CSqNzk%2FsMs%3D&reserved=0
> >
> > mrm-mccann.com<
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.mrm-mccann.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cjasuncion%40linkedin.com%7C450a6dc8b219476a491008d64664cdec%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636773796110157863&sdata=cYXcjAGCoIcVX3GLCoUL%2FF8NfBo5%2BJJjLM1mkHzApi8%3D&reserved=0
> >
> >
> > [MRM//McCann]
> > Relationship Is Our Middle Name
> >
> > Ad Age B-to-B Agency of the Year, 2018
> > Ad Age Agency A-List 2016, 2017
> > Ad Age Creativity Innovators 2016, 2017
> > North American Agency of the Year, Cannes 2016
> > Leader in Gartner Magic Quadrant, 2017, 2018
> >
> >
> > This message contains information which may be confidential and
> privileged. Unless you are the intended recipient (or authorized to receive
> this message for the intended recipient), you may not use, copy,
> disseminate or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained
> in the message. If you have received the message in error, please advise
> the sender by reply e-mail, and delete the message. Thank you very much.
> > --
> >
> > Cheers,
> > David MacDonald
> >
> >
> >
> > CanAdapt Solutions Inc.
> >
> > Tel:  613-806-9005
> >
> > LinkedIn
> > <
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fin%2Fdavidmacdonald100&data=02%7C01%7Cjasuncion%40linkedin.com%7C450a6dc8b219476a491008d64664cdec%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636773796110157863&sdata=n0ZxmQSCRIckSgkkt3Z%2BODhw%2FO4IkDRgBxO9eFfFi7c%3D&reserved=0
> >
> >
> > twitter.com/davidmacd<
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fdavidmacd&data=02%7C01%7Cjasuncion%40linkedin.com%7C450a6dc8b219476a491008d64664cdec%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636773796110167868&sdata=hZKCiAwYzCb0IyZM%2B9HTw1PGGDi%2Bwbdcr0SeeIvQ4Ns%3D&reserved=0
> >
> >
> > GitHub<
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2FDavidMacDonald&data=02%7C01%7Cjasuncion%40linkedin.com%7C450a6dc8b219476a491008d64664cdec%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636773796110177876&sdata=YGhUacLpKa1QeH2Sa5NXYs7wvA2t1%2FNe3WxCmTAMVwo%3D&reserved=0
> >
> >
> > www.Can-Adapt.com<
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.can-adapt.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cjasuncion%40linkedin.com%7C450a6dc8b219476a491008d64664cdec%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636773796110177876&sdata=tfPcq86ClXuVZxzz0ke%2BBeIcptobpNZL5QXKbD318FA%3D&reserved=0
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >    Adapting the web to all users
> >
> >              Including those with disabilities
> >
> > If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy<
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidmacd.com%2Fdisclaimer.html&data=02%7C01%7Cjasuncion%40linkedin.com%7C450a6dc8b219476a491008d64664cdec%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636773796110187884&sdata=b4UPWdivbnEEuDkkLOeJJcxmmRHLwfMwHoXze9poOqA%3D&reserved=0
> >
> >
>
> --
> @LeonieWatson @tink@toot.cafe Carpe diem
>