Re: What if Silver didn't have levels?

I like this +- points approach on top of the conformance level.  Kind of like a report card with A+ A- etc.

This message was Sent from my iPhone. Please excuse any typographic errors.

On Oct 15, 2019, at 5:26 PM, Makoto Ueki <makoto.ueki@gmail.com<mailto:makoto.ueki@gmail.com>> wrote:

Hi everyone,

Léonie, thanks for sharing this.

> The "good", "better", "best" model is problematic:

I agree with you on this and I've been thinking about this. If we use this model, it must be something everybody can get the "best" as the minimum goal. If it is almost impossible to get "best", then people won't do anything at all. I've seen "all or nothing" attitudes among web masters all the time.

I don't want to make it more difficult or complicated to make a conformance claim. I like the current way of making conformance claim, except for:
-  A single web page basis.
- If I have jusrt one failure against just one SC at AA, it's going to be Level A conformance (even if it is almost AA conformance!)
- In other words, Level A conformance can have a big fifference.
* For instance, Site A  just met all of Level A SC. And Site B met all of Level A SC and most of Level AA SC. Then, both sites are "same" Level A conformance as a result  while the level of accessibility is quite different.

The following is not perfect. But let me try to share what has been in my mind.
- Make it compatible with website/web service basis
* In Japan, we adopted the random sampling for the national standard (JIS X 8341-3)
* FYI: Conformance model of JIS X 8341-3:2016 (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SVDWemejSSBPPqJl4t_KBGeXWsFNWjHv0JW1y6RWgdg/edit?usp=sharing)
- Specifying one of the comformance level (A, AA or AAA) plus showing the quality level (incentive)
* The level setting/assignment of Level A, AA and AAA can be changed from WCAG 2.x. Assuming that, in Silver, different level can be assigned for the same SC. The conformance levels can be different as well.
- Quality level can be shown by using a single continuous scale "from 0 to 100".
* For instance, a website met Level A and also met some of Level AA plus they are doing usability testing regularly and so on, then it is going to be something like "Level A conformance +40". In this example, "+40" would be the bonus score for the substantial/additional efforts.

Cheers,
Makoto


2019年10月16日(水) 4:18 Léonie Watson <lwatson@tetralogical.com<mailto:lwatson@tetralogical.com>>:
Everyone,

I was talking with Patrick Lauke this evening, and he mentioned an idea
that I think is worth thinking about, even though it will likely trigger
protest.

What if we didn't have levels, or points accumulation targets?

The "good", "better", "best" model is problematic:

* The levels are effectively arbitrary, and they're inconsistent
depending on the nature of your disability/disabilities.

* They're not legal absolutes even when written into law. Cases are
still argued over nuances and interpretations, regardless of whether a
target conformance level has been achieved or not.

* The incentive effect, the intent to do better, can be achieved in
other ways.

What if we just used a single continuous scale, let's say for the
purposes of this discussion from 0 to 100, without defining "good",
"better", "best" steps along the way?

The incentive thing still works, it's just that you strive to improve
your score instead of to get from "good" to "best".

In legal cases the determination can be made on the score, and on the
basis of the case being made, which is effectively how it works now anyway.

A single continuous scale might help simplify the calculations too. I
know we're still looking at proposals for points systems, but I'm
concerned that we're looking at a level of complexity authors and
testers just won't be able to contend with.


Léonie.

--
Director @TetraLogical