Re: Costs of testing with Silver

Hey all,
@Mike Crabb: I think this is very interesting stuff. I am aware that work
is already happening that could be used to solve the problem I've outlined.
Having different requirements based on the type and complexity of the
content you are testing makes total sense to me. I am looking forward to
seeing those modals, and I think it's very much worth the effort to try and
work out how we can have testing with Silver to average out around 5% of
the total website budget.

@John F. I ask that you keep an open mind to this idea of adjusting
requirements based on the complexity and type of content. As Mike
suggested, work is already happening on this. Lets at least try to solve
the issue, instead of rejecting it out of principle.

You argue that it's economically viable for web developers to do a free
WCAG 2 audit for every $5k website, as a standard practice. Not just "easy
check" style testing, but a full WCAG 2 audit. Can you show me any
organisations that do this today?

Wilco

On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 5:26 AM Victoria Clark <fromtheturtlesback@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hello all,
>
> This is the first time I've responded to a thread but, boy, was this a
> whopper of a discussion! I like the idea of a tiered system of conformance,
> as this hierarchy is something I have seen used across multiple
> organizations. I'm used to a hierarchy based on level of access: blockers
> (one or more PwD would be blocked from digital content), poor ease of use
> (not blocked, but it is difficult, takes longer, and/or is confusing), and
> enhancements/usability. I like the added layer of including certain
> functions being required of a user agent vs. the development.
>
> On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 1:03 PM Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Everyone,
>>
>>
>>
>> I think we would struggle to put together a document that provides well
>> defined levels for types of organisation, or even size of project. Many
>> project are updates to an existing web-estate, so lots of small project
>> could then avoid requirements.
>>
>>
>>
>> I’ll try and be solution focused, and suggest that:
>>
>>
>>
>>    - We lead with the user-requirements as ‘guidelines’ (as I suggested
>>    previously), with general and per-technology specific criteria underneath
>>    that guideline.
>>
>>    - Each guideline could have levels, like A/AA/AAA, except that it
>>    cuts the criteria into levels instead of the guideline. E.g. WCAG 1.3.1 for
>>    HTML could be split into:
>>       - *Guideline*: The design is represented with appropriate
>>       structure and metadata.
>>       - *HTML Gold*: Every element uses the right tag/attributes, and
>>       are appropriately nested (manual test).
>>       - *HTML Silver*: Headings and lists are used and correctly nested,
>>       labels and for/ID relationships are valid.
>>       - *HTML Tool Bronze*: The CMS provides a headings feature for
>>       content authors, and warns about full lines of bold text.
>>       - *HTML bronze*: Headings and lists are used (with some
>>       pre-defined auto-wcag style tests)
>>       (A quick, off-the-top-of-my-head example.)
>>
>>       - The requirement is not split between levels, but the amount of
>>    effort needed to achieve it might be.
>>
>>    - Some requirements are weighted more towards user-agents and
>>    authoring tools. If Wix/Squarespace/Wordpress et al provided options for
>>    (more) accessible output, smaller organisations would have less testing to
>>    do.
>>
>>    - One for John: At bronze the requirement for focus styles could be
>>    placed on the user-agent, but for silver/gold the requirement could be for
>>    the site.
>>
>>    - There could be a ‘slice’ of the criteria that are aimed at sites
>>    using a good tool provider, reducing the testing ‘surface area’.
>>    NB: The tool provider would need to say that they fulfil the other
>>    requirements, so it becomes a marketing & procurement issue rather than a
>>    site development issue.
>>
>>    - I take John’s point that we have little or no leverage with the
>>    user-agents, but if we lead with the user-requirement, and provide
>>    ‘techniques’/  methods across websites/UA/authoring tools, it will make it
>>    much clearer where the effort needs to be applied!
>>
>>    - If we go down the route of levels for organisation capability, then
>>    it should be tied to other activities they are doing. For example,
>>    usability testing could be a valid method if the organisation already runs
>>    such testing in general, and that puts them above the small scale. This
>>    supports my recurring point that some things should be process-based rather
>>    than content based.
>>
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>>
>>
>> -Alastair
>>
>>
>>
>

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