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

Re: Measurability in Silver

From: Jeanne Spellman <jspellman@spellmanconsulting.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2018 11:58:54 -0500
To: public-silver@w3.org
Message-ID: <0845a432-a274-ae47-c14c-dd316df78e3d@spellmanconsulting.com>
Charles raises a very important issue: Can the qualitative result be 
accepted as a measurable “pass”?.  I am interested in what you think 
about it.  The example is link with no underline that fails 1.4.1 Color 
Alone (a common design pattern).   Should Silver accept the results of a 
test with users that found that a large percentage were able to identify 
that it was a link, even though it was only defined by the difference in 
color? Should that be a pass?

Should tests with users be able to change the pass/fail of the 
guidance?  I think that's an important question that I don't know the 
answer to yet.  It gives an opportunity to for companies with innovative 
responses to accessibility to prove that their approach is more 
accessible, even if it is a technical WCAG failure.  We heard the 
complaint from several large innovative companies that they had  to 
remove features that improved accessibility from their applications 
because they didn't pass WCAG.  That's a problem. Testing with users 
with disabilities is a potential solution. I saw a presentation at 
A11yBOS where the presenter showed some visual designs that passed WCAG 
that were inaccessible.  Testing with users with disabilities could 
encourage companies to move away from technical conformance to WCAG that 
is still inaccessible and focus on what works for users.

On the other hand, testing with users with disabilities can be small 
datasets.  They can be skewed toward one disability  or levels of 
expertise.  Potentially, it might be easier to game the system by who 
was being selected to participate in the study.  I have seen testing 
with people with disabilities that provided very valuable accessibility 
information that goes well beyond WCAG requirements. But do I want that 
to override other conformance measures?  I'm interested in some new 
ideas that could help safeguard people from abusing the system.

On 11/7/2018 9:45 PM, David MacDonald wrote:
> I think most WCAG evaluators would not include  transient states that 
> last a split second on inline links unless there was some added value.
> On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 12:36 PM Hall, Charles (DET-MRM) 
> <Charles.Hall@mrm-mccann.com <mailto:Charles.Hall@mrm-mccann.com>> wrote:
>     Following up on today’s conversation.
>     RE: Testing as Pass/Fail versus Measurability
>     All (or at least most) of the feedback, comments, and opposition
>     to a “measurable” approach seem to suggest or imply that
>     measurable means a scale – for example, a score of 1–5.
>     Some thoughts based on a specific example:
>     Success Criterion 1.4.1 Use of Color (Level A)
>     Color is not used *as the only visual means* of conveying
>     information, indicating an action, prompting a response, or
>     distinguishing a visual element.
>     Technique
>     Situation A: If the color of particular words, backgrounds, or
>     other content is used to indicate information:
>     G205: Including a text cue for colored form control labels
>     Test
>     For any content where color differences are used to convey
>     information:
>     Check that the same information is available through text or
>     character cues.
>     Interpretation
>     “…text or character cues” here is intended to describe the “visual
>     means” as defined in the SC. So there is a simple pass / fail test
>     that “the same information” [as color] is visible.
>     Hypothetical scenario
>     Element is a link. The information and indication of action is
>     “this text is a link”. It is blue text within a line of black text
>     that is not a link. It is not underlined. Links are stateful.
>     There is only 1 of 5 states where there is no second explicit
>     visual means. In the default state, there is color alone. In the
>     focus, active, hover and visited states there are additional
>     visual affordances as well as the user agent providing a pointer
>     cursor where there is a pointing input device. There is even a
>     selected state, and a pseudo after element that includes content
>     of an icon that conveys the link is external.
>     So, “same information is available through text or character cues”
>     is true in 4 states, but not true in 1. Does this fail? Under WCAG
>     1.4.1, it does. Under Silver, there may be other options. As a
>     scale (as suggested at the beginning), this could earn a 4 of 5.
>     However, that then requires an enumerated mark such as ‘3 or
>     higher’ to qualify as passing. There is another option. What if
>     the test question was “do people understand from any visual cues
>     that this text is a link?” Then that question was answered by test
>     participants that included 60 people with a wide spectrum of
>     visual abilities and color deficiencies. If the result was 49 of
>     60 said “yes”, and 8 of 60 said “yes, if” or “yes, when” and 3
>     said “no”, there is clearly a new grey area or middle ground
>     beyond simply scoring on a scale. The qualitative result is that
>     it passed, while the quantitative result is that it scored high
>     enough to pass if the enumerated mark or threshold was 51%. *Can
>     the qualitative result be accepted as a measurable “pass”?*
>     Cheers,
>     *Charles Hall* // Senior UX Architect
>     charles.hall@mrm-mccann.com
>     <mailto:charles.hall@mrm-mccann.com?subject=Note%20From%20Signature>
>     w 248.203.8723
>     m 248.225.8179
>     360 W Maple Ave,
>     <https://maps.google.com/?q=360+W+Maple+Ave,+Birmingham+MI+48009&entry=gmail&source=g>
>     Birmingham MI 48009
>     <https://maps.google.com/?q=360+W+Maple+Ave,+Birmingham+MI+48009&entry=gmail&source=g>
>     mrm-mccann.com <https://www.mrm-mccann.com/>
>     MRM//McCann
>     Relationship Is Our Middle Name
>     Ad Age B-to-B Agency of the Year, 2018
>     Ad Age Agency A-List 2016, 2017
>     Ad Age Creativity Innovators 2016, 2017
>     North American Agency of the Year, Cannes 2016
>     Leader in Gartner Magic Quadrant, 2017, 2018
>     This message contains information which may be confidential and
>     privileged. Unless you are the intended recipient (or authorized
>     to receive this message for the intended recipient), you may not
>     use, copy, disseminate or disclose to anyone the message or any
>     information contained in the message. If you have received the
>     message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail, and
>     delete the message. Thank you very much.
> -- 
> Cheers,
> David MacDonald
> *Can**Adapt**Solutions Inc.*
> Tel:  613-806-9005
> LinkedIn
> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>
> twitter.com/davidmacd <http://twitter.com/davidmacd>
> GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald>
> www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/>
> /  Adapting the web to *all* users/
> /            Including those with disabilities/
> If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy 
> policy <http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>
Received on Friday, 9 November 2018 16:59:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:31:44 UTC