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

Re: Examples of tests in Silver

From: Wilco Fiers <wilco.fiers@deque.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2018 11:28:12 +0200
Message-ID: <CAHVyjGOiGN9OCFP8Jgm3oRGnc12kgBEuT=HJ0rw5Ev=aqSEcSA@mail.gmail.com>
To: amaniez@access42.net
Cc: public-silver@w3.org
Hey all,
Speaking with both my ACT TF chair hat and my Auto-WCAG CG chair hat on
here. I believe the work we are currently doing can (and IMO should) be
leveraged in Silver. I agree with Audrey that instead of using techniques,
Silver should be referencing ACT rules. Techniques aren't appropriate for
this purpose. Except for failure techniques (which have different issues),
techniques don't tell you when something is inaccessible.

Techniques tell you if a particular solution was used, out of a possible
infinite number of ways to do it, a technique describes one solution.
That's fantastic if you're a developer and want to know common ways to do
something correct. It's not useful if you want to know if something
conformace, because not using the technique doesn't actually tell you if
something is non-conformant. Rules do just that. If a rule is applicable it
will tell you if (part of) an accessibility requirement is non-conformant.
We've broken the accessibility requirements down to small assertions that
should be true about all applicable elements, and if they aren't, you know
that element is non-conforming.

I don't have a problem with the score system. It works at a level above ACT
rules. Rather than having a direct aggregation from: If a rule fails, the
success criterion fails, to: Count the fails and passes of a rule, if 90%
passes, the success criterion passes. I believe that should work fine.

One thing I would ask from the Silver TF is this. I've been trying to get
more involved, but it is hard for me to stay up to speed on all
discussions. What would really help is if someone who's up to speed on all
if it could do a review of the current draft of the ACT Rules Format, and
to let the ACT task force know if there are any things that might not work
with some of the solutions that have been invisioned for Silver.

You can find the draft here: https://www.w3.org/TR/act-rules-format/
And you can raise issues here: https://github.com/w3c/wcag-act/issues

Kind regards,

Wilco

On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 9:42 AM Audrey Maniez <amaniez@access42.net> wrote:

> 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
>
>
> --
> [image: 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
>
>
> --
> [image: 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
>


-- 
*Wilco Fiers*
Senior Accessibility Engineer - Co-facilitator WCAG-ACT - Chair Auto-WCAG

deque_logo_180p.gif
(image/gif attachment: deque_logo_180p.gif)

Received on Tuesday, 28 August 2018 09:28:47 UTC

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