Wrapping up this thread (for now) [Re: Costs of testing with Silver]

Thank you Erik, I appreciate your insight.  The Silver group does 
appreciate "possibly unrealistic, crazy, disruptive ideas to how the 
next generation of Silver should look".

As James Harrington requested, I have set up a Google doc with public 
view and comment ability that is my attempt to summarize this discussion 
in a single document.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VLP5o8mwcPwnQkKXccw6AmL6V__VOFyrqmJ-FB0pXfM/edit#heading=h.v1y7ccahpl82

We have scheduled a teleconference on 18 September at 9:30ET/14:30 UTC 
where we will discuss the possible solutions that have come from this 
discussion.  I will be sending an email in a few days with the 
conference call information.

Please don't respond to this email, but rather open a new email thread 
with your ideas on a specific topic.  Let's keep the email threads 
manageable in respect for the participants in this group, especially 
those with disabilities where long email threads are a barrier.

Let me give you some insight on what we are working on and how we could 
potentially bring some of the interesting ideas that have come from this 
discussion into Silver.

Information Architecture:  The current prototype that Mike Crabb is 
working on would flatten the current architecture of WCAG -- removing 
the Principles and the Success Criteria layers, and leaving Guidelines.  
The Guidelines can be written in plain language and are technology 
neutral. Some of the existing advice that is in WCAG 2.1 success critera 
would move to Guidelines, others would move to Methods.  The Methods 
would be technology specific and would include testing criteria. The 
test criteria can be more flexible than the simple True/False statement 
of the WCAG 2.x success criteria, while still maintaining the 
testability needed for regulatory environment use.  The Methods and 
Guidelines would be connected by a  tagging engine that would have 
flexible ways to display and filter guidance.  Check the main page of 
the Silver wiki for the most current links to active work.
https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Main_Page#Current_Prototypes 


Conformance: Silver is prototyping a more flexible conformance structure 
that is inspired by the LEEDS Green Building standard.  We are still 
looking at 3 levels, but the guidance would not be assigned to a level, 
the level would be the overall score.  The bronze, silver and gold 
levels would more clearly communicate that bronze is a minimum, and 
there is a clearer incentive for organizations to aim higher.  While 
much of the WCAG component conformance would move into this format, it 
leaves the opportunity for more nuanced guidance.  There can be multiple 
point scoring systems that could be customized by type of product or 
organization, e.g. a simple website, a e-commerce website, a social 
media site, and (potentially) non-traditional-web products.  This is a 
challenging project and more help would be welcome.

Plain Language: We have done an informal round of user testing on some 
plain language prototypes and are refining the prototypes in preparation 
for testing with users. More information will be coming soon.

Meaningful Involvement (of people with disabilities): This is some 
exciting new work exploring how the guidelines can advise on involving 
more people with disabilities in the early stages of product design.  We 
haven't begun to figure out how this works in the architecture yet.  
More participation is welcome.

Thanks for the ideas that came out of this thread.  They are very 
helpful in shaping Silver.  Thank you to the list "lurkers" who spoke 
out.  You are very welcome to participate in Silver however you want.

We made a Welcome to Silver document for those who would like to 
participate more, but don't know how to get started. 
https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Welcome_to_Silver

jeanne



On 9/7/2018 9:27 AM, Stein Erik Skotkjerra wrote:
>
> Hi, all,
>
> I’d like to share an observation that is not strictly related to this 
> discussion.
>
> If we want broad participation and for people to invest time, 
> expertise and possibly money – I’m not saying cost ☺in Silver 
> development - we need to ensure that we keep a welcoming and 
> respectful tone in our communication, and that we try to be 
> constructive and solution focused. Following the discussion on this 
> list lately doesn’t seem to me very inviting and inclusive, and had I 
> been completely new to this field and W3C I would definitely not  have 
> dared to share my thoughts. This is not a comment directed at any 
> individual but rather a general remark. If we want to be collecting 
> all those possibly unrealistic, crazy, disruptive ideas to how the 
> next generation of Silver should look we need to be sure that we 
> welcome them all.
>
> cid:image001.png@01D37335.32C5A170
>
> Stein Erik Skotkjerra
>
> /Head of Accessibility Relations/
>
> cid:image002.png@01D37335.32C5A170 <http://siteimprove.com/da/>
>
> Sankt Annæ Plads 28  |  DK-1250 København K
>
> Mobile +45 26 34 34 55  | ses@siteimprove.com <mailto:ses@siteimprove.com>
>
> Facebook <https://www.facebook.com/Siteimprove>Twitter 
> <https://twitter.com/Siteimprove>LinkedIn 
> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/siteimprove>
>
> /Unsubscribe/ 
> <http://go.siteimprove.com/hs/manage-preferences/unsubscribe-simple>Stein 
> Erik Skotkjerra
>
> *From: *John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com>
> *Date: *Friday, 7 September 2018 at 15.15
> *To: *Wilco Fiers <wilco.fiers@deque.com>
> *Cc: *"fromtheturtlesback@gmail.com" <fromtheturtlesback@gmail.com>, 
> "public-silver@w3.org" <public-silver@w3.org>
> *Subject: *Re: Costs of testing with Silver
> *Resent-From: *<public-silver@w3.org>
> *Resent-Date: *Friday, 7 September 2018 at 15.14
>
> Wilco writes:
>
>     > You argue that it's economically viable for web developers to do a
>     free WCAG 2 audit for every $5k website, as a standard practice.
>
> Not at all. I have not said that, and I do not know where you are 
> pulling those numbers from.
>
> I'm arguing that if the developers use the requirements and techniques 
> articulated in WCAG, they won't be having to go looking for problems, 
> they will instead be confirming that no problems exist. An audit comes 
> at the end: shift left, and have the developers do the right thing in 
> the first place, thus your "audit" is nothing more than your already 
> existing QA task - it's one and the same, not separate.
>
> Additionally, I am suggesting that any web dev shop that sells 
> "accessibility" as an additional line-item cost on their invoice is 
> already a shop thinking about accessibility wrongly. When I order a 
> meal in a restaurant, I don't pay for the food, and then pay the 
> energy cost to cook that food separately. Web dev shops care about 
> accessibility, or they don't. The "cost" of doing accessibility is a 
> red herring in that context: the real cost is in learning how to do 
> things correctly, not in running an audit at some fixed point in time 
> - a point we've also been making in the mainstream for ages now.
>
> Your argument is similar to saying that mechanics will change your 
> brakes for $30, but if you want them to also do a safety check to make 
> sure those brakes work, it's an additional $100. If a web dev shop 
> wants to price their services that way, all the power to them. But to 
> say that their pricing model should influence levels of conformance 
> within WCAG is the tail wagging the dog: it perpetuates the wrong idea 
> that accessibility is a separate, additional feature, a line item that 
> can be added or removed to adjust the bottom line.
>
> Finally, you argue that it's cost that is stopping smaller shops from 
> doing accessible web development - which I would also question. Do you 
> have any proof, besides an anecdotal observation that 10 years ago 
> when we moved from WCAG 1.0 to WCAG 2.0 that smaller shops in the 
> Netherlands stopped caring or checking for accessibility conformance? 
> And what is more important? An accessible site today, or a piece of 
> paper dated 12 months ago that said that you found my site to be 
> accessible back then?
>
> Again, I don't want to ignore cost, but I do want to keep it in 
> perspective, and in the perspective of a standards org that writes 
> standards, specifically a standard that ensures access to as many PwD 
> as we can achieve, and not the accounting office of small businesses 
> that turns over every penny. I am sympathetic to cost, but only to a 
> point - I am more concerned that we don't leave users behind 
> because it "costs the dev team too much" to do.
>
> I'm more focused on the priority of constituents: Users over Authors, 
> Authors over Implementers, and Implementers over Code Purity. All I am 
> saying is when we have a discussion on cost, I believe it is important 
> we keep that principle in mind as well.
>
> JF
>
> On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 4:55 AM, Wilco Fiers <wilco.fiers@deque.com 
> <mailto:wilco.fiers@deque.com>> wrote:
>
>     Hey all,
>
>     @Mike Crabb: I think this is very interesting stuff. I am aware
>     that work is already happening that could be used to solve the
>     problem I've outlined. Having different requirements based on the
>     type and complexity of the content you are testing makes total
>     sense to me. I am looking forward to seeing those modals, and I
>     think it's very much worth the effort to try and work out how we
>     can have testing with Silver to average out around 5% of the total
>     website budget.
>
>     @John F. I ask that you keep an open mind to this idea of
>     adjusting requirements based on the complexity and type of
>     content. As Mike suggested, work is already happening on this.
>     Lets at least try to solve the issue, instead of rejecting it out
>     of principle.
>
>     You argue that it's economically viable for web developers to do a
>     free WCAG 2 audit for every $5k website, as a standard practice.
>     Not just "easy check" style testing, but a full WCAG 2 audit. Can
>     you show me any organisations that do this today?
>
>     Wilco
>
>     On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 5:26 AM Victoria Clark
>     <fromtheturtlesback@gmail.com
>     <mailto:fromtheturtlesback@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>         Hello all,
>
>         This is the first time I've responded to a thread but, boy,
>         was this a whopper of a discussion! I like the idea of a
>         tiered system of conformance, as this hierarchy is something I
>         have seen used across multiple organizations. I'm used to a
>         hierarchy based on level of access: blockers (one or more PwD
>         would be blocked from digital content), poor ease of use (not
>         blocked, but it is difficult, takes longer, and/or is
>         confusing), and enhancements/usability. I like the added layer
>         of including certain functions being required of a user agent
>         vs. the development.
>
>         On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 1:03 PM Alastair Campbell
>         <acampbell@nomensa.com <mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com>> wrote:
>
>             Hi Everyone,
>
>             I think we would struggle to put together a document that
>             provides well defined levels for types of organisation, or
>             even size of project. Many project are updates to an
>             existing web-estate, so lots of small project could then
>             avoid requirements.
>
>             I’ll try and be solution focused, and suggest that:
>
>               * We lead with the user-requirements as ‘guidelines’ (as
>                 I suggested previously), with general and
>                 per-technology specific criteria underneath that
>                 guideline.
>               * Each guideline could have levels, like A/AA/AAA,
>                 except that it cuts the criteria into levels instead
>                 of the guideline. E.g. WCAG 1.3.1 for HTML could be
>                 split into:
>
>                   o *Guideline*: The design is represented with
>                     appropriate structure and metadata.
>                   o *HTML Gold*: Every element uses the right
>                     tag/attributes, and are appropriately nested
>                     (manual test).
>                   o *HTML Silver*: Headings and lists are used and
>                     correctly nested, labels and for/ID relationships
>                     are valid.
>                   o *HTML Tool Bronze*: The CMS provides a headings
>                     feature for content authors, and warns about full
>                     lines of bold text.
>                   o *HTML bronze*: Headings and lists are used (with
>                     some pre-defined auto-wcag style tests)
>                     (A quick, off-the-top-of-my-head example.)
>
>               * The requirement is not split between levels, but the
>                 amount of effort needed to achieve it might be.
>               * Some requirements are weighted more towards
>                 user-agents and authoring tools. If
>                 Wix/Squarespace/Wordpress et al provided options for
>                 (more) accessible output, smaller organisations would
>                 have less testing to do.
>               * One for John: At bronze the requirement for focus
>                 styles could be placed on the user-agent, but for
>                 silver/gold the requirement could be for the site.
>               * There could be a ‘slice’ of the criteria that are
>                 aimed at sites using a good tool provider, reducing
>                 the testing ‘surface area’.
>                 NB: The tool provider would need to say that they
>                 fulfil the other requirements, so it becomes a
>                 marketing & procurement issue rather than a site
>                 development issue.
>               * I take John’s point that we have little or no leverage
>                 with the user-agents, but if we lead with the
>                 user-requirement, and provide ‘techniques’/  methods
>                 across websites/UA/authoring tools, it will make it
>                 much clearer where the effort needs to be applied!
>               * If we go down the route of levels for organisation
>                 capability, then it should be tied to other activities
>                 they are doing. For example, usability testing could
>                 be a valid method if the organisation already runs
>                 such testing in general, and that puts them above the
>                 small scale. This supports my recurring point that
>                 some things should be process-based rather than
>                 content based.
>
>             Cheers,
>
>             -Alastair
>
>
>     -- 
>
>     *Wilco Fiers*
>
>     Senior Accessibility Engineer - Co-facilitator WCAG-ACT - Chair
>     Auto-WCAG
>
>     *Error! Filename not specified.*
>
>
>
> -- 
>
> *John Foliot*| Principal Accessibility Strategist
>
> Deque Systems - Accessibility for Good
>
> deque.com 
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdeque.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cses%40siteimprove.com%7C38b22bbf2f7a43bafea508d614c3ea82%7Cad30e5bc301d40dba10a0e8d40abe0f9%7C0%7C0%7C636719229020355593&sdata=sXFf9lvuzWCRAPTcbMHZBXKre8mTlQ34BZvda99kjN8%3D&reserved=0>
>