W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-silver@w3.org > August 2018

Re: Examples of tests in Silver

From: Audrey Maniez <amaniez@access42.net>
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2018 09:41:49 +0200
To: Silver Task Force <public-silver@w3.org>
Message-ID: <2fd5b0fa-0117-2c71-e8ba-2bbf1e5bf03e@access42.net>
Hello,

Thanks for the welcome !

 > If it is possible to for you to attend a meeting and get us up to 
speed on AutoWCAG you would be very welcome. Let me know what date works 
for you and I will make sure we put it on the agenda.

Oh, sorry if i made you think I was leading something in AutoWCAG. I 
just follow the group  but I'm not an active participant in it, so I 
don't think I'm the best personn right now to introduce something about 
it ^^  It was simply a questionning from me, to understand if there 
would be a link between the two. So I understand better,  and when it is 
time to work on this aspect, I definitively would  like to be part of 
the group in charge of this work!

Auto WCAG CG write automated tests, but also semi auto and manual. You 
can read about rules creation etc.. on the github repo : 
https://auto-wcag.github.io/auto-wcag/


Le 24/08/2018 à 17:55, Jeanne Spellman a écrit :
>
> Hi Audrey,
>
> Thank you for your comments and ideas, and they are not too late at 
> all.  We know this is a complex problem that is going to take a lot of 
> discussion and input from people -- especially people in ACT and 
> Auto-WCAG.
>
> The Point System should not be in conflict with AutoWCAG, it will be a 
> different way of scoring the results of AutoWCAG, because Silver will 
> have potentially different guidelines than WCAG.  I think it will be 
> important to coordinate closely with AutoWCAG to ensure that AutoWCAG 
> will be able to transition smoothly to AutoSilver (or whatever name 
> Silver has eventually) when the time comes. We know that automated 
> testing will be an important aspect of Silver and we want to make it 
> easier and not harder.
>
> If it is possible to for you to attend a meeting and get us up to 
> speed on AutoWCAG you would be very welcome. Let me know what date 
> works for you and I will make sure we put it on the agenda.
>
> If there is anything current we can read about AutoWCAG, please send 
> us a link.  I don't see any links to recent reports on the Community 
> Group home page, but that is not surprising because the CG home pages 
> are terrible to work with.
>
> jeanne
>
>
> On 8/20/2018 8:02 AM, Audrey Maniez wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I'm new to participate, I follow the group since monthes now and 
>> appreciate everything that happens on that list (you link and create 
>> so relevant and interesting ressources).
>>
>> The conformance and testing subject is on the top on my list of 
>> interests so I need to participate to that topic :-)
>>
>> I read mails in the list and the document "examples on how silver 
>> conformance work" and I have some comments/suggestions/questions.
>>
>> Sorry if I'm late in participating on that topic and if i'm out some 
>> subject you may have already treated...
>>
>> *A**bout "Point System"*
>>
>> In the section "Point System", we find some kind of unit tests (that 
>> refers to WCAG techniques I assume), like checking if lang attribute 
>> exists ... but*Auto WCAG CG is doing a big and great job* on that 
>> point, detailed tests to conduct evaluation. Why don't "wait" (or 
>> participate)  that job to be done, and "just" refers to ? Exemple of 
>> rule created by Auto WCAG CG : 
>> https://auto-wcag.github.io/auto-wcag/rules/SC3-1-1-html-has-lang.html
>>
>> *That the objective of ACT TF and AutoWCAG to harmonize testing 
>> methods*. Create an other testing method in the "Silver conformance" 
>> would lead to create new differences in evaluation. Reusing/refers to 
>> tests define by the AutoWcag CG allowed to gain time, expertise and 
>> we don't have the job to be get done twice. And that's the objective 
>> of Silver, to create a new harmonized framework, so I think based 
>> silver conformance on AutoWCAG work is something important... Maybe 
>> it could be incorporate in a certain way, more like a "checklist", 
>> but I think it definitly must depend on that AutoWCAG standard.
>>
>> Then, I am not convinced with the first points system detailed (the 
>> example with images) : we ask for a percentage of validity based on 
>> the number of images : if 95% images have good alternative for 
>> example, then the site access the bronze level. But, what if only one 
>> image in the page has no description, but that image is essential for 
>> accessing the information.
>>
>> IMHO, a scale based on something like the *"severity of block scale"* 
>> described in the document you linked : 
>> https://ebay.gitbooks.io/oatmeal/priorities.html is really much more 
>> appropriate. It will really evaluate the impact of errors on 
>> accessing the information (not only the numbers of errors, which can 
>> be relevant in some situation indeed).
>>
>> *In France, the government has made a similar documentation 
>> "Accessibility failing: Impacts on Users" * 
>> https://disic.github.io/guide-impacts_utilisateurs/ It describes and 
>> evaluate by type of element (images, link, form etc...)  the impact 
>> on information access (a 4 points scale : low, moderate, strong, 
>> major) *If you are interested I can make an abstract in english 
>> **(and a complete translation if some of you find it relevant).*
>>
>> *About the "Silver Conformance"
>> *
>>
>> It's more a general questionning. I understand the need for sharing 
>> with people which are not part of the accessibility audit process. We 
>> all have that kinds of problems when communicate with chief for 
>> example, or for developpers to get an indicator of achievment etc. 
>> But maybe it would be less confuse if we name it a different way that 
>> "conformance". I mean *"conformance" is a sacred word in audit 
>> process*. Maybe something less formal like "evaluation", "score" or 
>> "scale" ?
>>
>> Then, legally, sites must be 100% conform (not "more thant xx%") "/To 
>> conform to WCAG 2.0, you need to satisfy the Success Criteria, that 
>> is, there is no content which violates the Success Criteria./", so it 
>> has to be clear that "silver conformance" is a *tool*, and detail its 
>> purpose ? The objective of the "silver conformance" must be detailed 
>> for people not to think their site are "conform" if they reach a 
>> minimum number of points.
>>
>>
>> Many many other thought to share, I really enjoy the project :-)
>>
>> Le 06/08/2018 à 19:04, Jeanne Spellman a écrit :
>>> Please review and comment. These are some examples I have roughly 
>>> outlined of how testing could work for alternative text with the 
>>> Conformance points and levels. It still needs a lot of discussion 
>>> and details.
>>>
>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aBoQ1HDindVnFk_7Ljp-whpK3zAiqAdgJxsgpqsNpgU/edit?usp=sharing 
>>>
>>>
>>> Comments are turned on in Google docs.  However, if you would prefer 
>>> to comment by email, please reply to the list.  We will be 
>>> discussing this in the Tuesday meeting (7 August).
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> jeanne
>>>
>>>
>> -- 
>> Access42 		
>>
>> *Audrey MANIEZ*
>> Experte accessibilité numérique
>> 06 22 11 29 62
>>
>> Expertise et formation en accessibilité numérique
>>
>> Site web <https://access42.net/> — Twitter 
>> <https://twitter.com/access42net> — LinkedIn 
>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/access42> — Newsletter 
>> <http://eepurl.com/dgHY2b>
>>
>> Organisme de formation référencé dans le Datadock
>>
>
-- 
Access42 		

*Audrey MANIEZ*
Experte accessibilité numérique
06 22 11 29 62

Expertise et formation en accessibilité numérique

Site web <https://access42.net/> — Twitter 
<https://twitter.com/access42net> — LinkedIn 
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/access42> — Newsletter 
<http://eepurl.com/dgHY2b>

Organisme de formation référencé dans le Datadock
Received on Tuesday, 28 August 2018 07:42:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:31:43 UTC