- From: Luis Garcia <w3c@garcialo.com>
- Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2018 09:40:51 -0700
- To: Jeanne Spellman <jspellman@spellmanconsulting.com>
- Cc: public-silver@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CACRwngRGi-t4myM2q+aGd+xMt1MHDvu3uLYMLAmPMJ6ww9JMGw@mail.gmail.com>
I'd love to make "reduce the cost of accessibility testing" a goal. That said, is there already a way that "cost of accessibility testing" has been calculated for WCAG 1.0, 2.0, and 2.1? If it's not something that already exists, I don't know that we'd want to have it be a primary goal. As it is, there will already be a cost associated with adjusting to Silver. I think we might be able to lower the overall cost of accessibility by making it more a part of everyone's job. And I think we can do that by making the guidelines more accessible. luis On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 7:55 AM Jeanne Spellman < jspellman@spellmanconsulting.com> wrote: > This is a very interesting idea that I do think we need to discuss. When > I was first thinking about Silver two years ago, I had a thought that we > could do automated testing for a basic level of accessibility. As we went > through all the research and started forming the ideas and proposals, I had > forgotten about it. I am open to looking at this in more detail. > > My concern would be the amount of disability needs that could be included > in reduced-cost testing, particularly the non-physical needs, like > cognitive disabilities. I know there is new research and testing in the > last couple years that could be a viable solution. > > I would like to schedule this discussion so we could have a number of > people involved who care about this issue, and devote an entire meeting (or > more) to it. > > On 8/28/2018 6:19 AM, Wilco Fiers wrote: > > Hey all, > > Firstly, all hats off. Sharing a personal view here. I wanted to reach out > about a thing that I've been concerned with regarding Silver. With WCAG 2.1 > I saw some discussions about the increased cost of testing compared to WCAG > 2.0. Thinking about the adoption of WCAG 2.0 from WCAG 1.0, there too I saw > that the amount of work it took to do accessibility testing had increased > quite significantly. > > I'm concerned that (as far as I can tell) there hasn't yet been a > discussion about costs of testing with Silver. I know its still early days, > but I think that we should have that discussion, and decide what kind of > target we'd like to hit for Silver. There are all these fantastic ideas > floating around, about score cards, usability testing, expanding to include > non-web technologies. Lots of great stuff, but we have to be aware that all > of these things are going to have a price tag. > > I would very much like for the Silver group to decide how much they think > the cost of doing accessibility testing is allowed to increase. Is it okay > for the costs of testing to double between WCAG 2.0 and Silver like they > did from WCAG 1.0 to 2.0? Is it allowed to increase at all? Should Silver > be designed to decrease costs instead? > > Making Silver easier to use, lowering the barrier to entry, those are > fantastic goals. But those things really don't matter if someone can't get > the budget to do accessibility testing. And without testing, you can't > maintain an accessible site. I don't think it's unreasonable to think that > if Silver decreases the cost of accessibility testing, it could get wider > adoption than WCAG 2 did. Where is if the opposite happens, if testing for > Silver is far more expansive than it is for WCAG 2, that organisations > might just stick with WCAG 2 for a long time to come. > > Personally, I'm of the opinion that WCAG 2 is already too expansive. When > I was still testing WCAG 1, I'd regularly test websites of smaller > organisations. Those organisations stopped coming when the costs went up > for WCAG 2. I think a good target for Silver would be that at the bronze > level, costs for testing are about half what they are for WCAG 2.0 Level > AA. I believe that that would make it affordable again for small > businesses, which I think should be a goal for Silver. > > Either way, Silver needs to be designed with an eye on testing costs, and > it would help if we had some goals defined for it. > > -- > *Wilco Fiers* > Senior Accessibility Engineer - Co-facilitator WCAG-ACT - Chair Auto-WCAG > > >
Received on Tuesday, 28 August 2018 18:29:37 UTC