Re: What if Silver didn't have levels?

Hi Jason,

 

I like what you suggest below. Your suggestions would fit more in line of legislation that already exists, such as Mandate 376 in the EU and Section 508 Refresh in the US. It also comes into line with the AODA Information and Communications Standard Phase II (if the govt includes it), the Canadian Federal Accessible Canada Act (being developed) and the Manitoba Info and Comms Standard (based on the second stage of creation only).

 

All of the above are based on the idea of Functional Accessibility Requirements. These are similar to what you said below, for example if you need sight to access a video, provide an alternative. The FAR, as we call them, will always be stable, unless humans are replaced with robotic parts. This is unlike technologies and ways of providing or receiving digital information and communications. 

 

Cheers

 

Lisa

 

Lisa Snider

Senior Digital Accessibility Consultant & Trainer

Access Changes Everything

Web: www.accesschangeseverything.com

Phone: (800) 208-1936

 

From: Jason Khurdan <jkhurdan@echo.rutgers.edu>
Date: Monday, October 21, 2019 at 1:24 PM
To: John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com>, "lwatson@tetralogical.com" <lwatson@tetralogical.com>
Cc: "public-silver@w3.org" <public-silver@w3.org>
Subject: Re: What if Silver didn't have levels?
Resent-From: <public-silver@w3.org>
Resent-Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2019 16:23:48 +0000

 

Dear all,

 

First-time caller, long-time listener here. I really like the idea that was developed early on of creating 'recipe cards', which broke out the objectives by type of role that created accessible content. I like that however as an evaluation to the standards. I think it's necessary in conjunction with that to have an assessment that is non-linear (a great book to read about that is Anti-fragile). By this, as technology changes, coding languages changes, it remains viable without having to make new additions. I think this is the direction we continue to find ourselves searching for, and I think its a great one.

 

In regards to that, and the idea of good, better, great (or the demerit system below), what if it was determined by a grid-based on user and end objective. For example disability types (which can be a finite list) vs actions in the example below, and the grade was simply: Barriers exist, No barriers exist, and multi-means of expressions exist. You could provide a 1-3 grade for each, and then end up with a total score allowing you to have the same concept of developing grades similar to the A, AA, AAA standards.  The 'recipe cards' would then be used as the means of evaluation. 

 

Access ContentInteract with contentetc
Mobility
Vision
SLD
etc
 

The idea might be too simplified, but I thought I'd share. I think you all are doing great work! Thank you for all the hours you have put in.

 

Jason

 

From: Léonie Watson <lwatson@tetralogical.com>
Sent: Monday, October 21, 2019 9:17 AM
To: John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com>
Cc: public-silver@w3.org <public-silver@w3.org>
Subject: Re: What if Silver didn't have levels? 

 

On 20/10/2019 15:58, John Foliot wrote:
> 
JF wrote:
> (In case it is not clear or well-known, Léonie and I are good friends, 
> and this is written with due respect to my colleague and sister from a 
> different mother)

We are, and that's exactly why this discussion is both welcome and useful.

> 
> Léoniewrites:
> 
>      > As a disabled person I don't want "awesome", I just want "usable",
> 
>     ...and...
> 
>      > which is exactly why I'm championing the idea of getting rid of
>     levels, and having a sliding 0% to 100% scale instead.

JF then wrote:
> Respectfully then, if "awesome" = 100%, what does "usable" equal on that 
> sliding scale? 60%, 70%, 80%, 99%...

100%.

JF wrote:
> This is the challenge, and for regulators, if 99% is too high, and (we 
> suspect) 45% is too low, how do we measure and score usable? Because the 
> moment you peg that as a percentile, you've set the minimum bar for 
> those orgs that are doing accessibility, not for the right reasons, but 
> simply to avoid being sued. I hate that in 2019 that is still a reality 
> (and one I've fought against for decades now), but that is where we are 
> today.

I agree, which is one of the reasons I want to change the way we answer 
that question. Instead of answering "65% or Level AA", I think we should 
answer "100%".

Instead of saying that proper accessibility is "too high", we should say 
"it is what it is".

JF wrote:
> I do not see a tonne of daylight between your (undeclared) definition of 
> "usable" and Minimum Viable Product in this scenario my friend - it's 
> somewhere between perfect and useless, measured as a percentile. Knowing 
> that if perfect = 100%, usable for you will be less than 100% - so how 
> much less? And is that percentile number different based on disability 
> or disabilities?

Leaving what we call it aside for the moment, I think 100% should be a 
set of requirements that collectively give people from different groups 
the best accessibility we can come up with.

The other way to put it, is that I don't think we can (or should) define 
minimum viability, knowing that it will exclude people.

JF wrote:
> Part of the problem is that, in reality, the "acceptable" percentile of 
> accessible will vary based on the individual - because people with 
> disabilities are individuals and not monolithic "user-groups". Yet 
> regulators need a baseline, because for them, the law is (and always 
> will be) a black or white call, whereas in reality, digital 
> accessibility is the million shades of gray.

Right, so instead of setting a baseline that we know excludes people, 
let's not do that next time around.

Léonie.