Re: Costs of testing with Silver

Hi Wilco and all,

I've just joined this mailing list. This is very interesting thread. Let me
join the discussion.

Wilco Fiers wrote:
> The question is, how do we enable organisations with a small budget to
still use Silver?

This is a tough question.

Wilco Fiers wrote:
> Another perspective I want to add is that organisations are already using
"light" versions of WCAG.

I like the "light" version/level approach. Actually I've been using the
"basic/minimum 10 points you should do at least" which I picked up from
WCAG SC/Techniques for the "beginners". It works very well. I got inspired
by WAI's "Easy Checks".

In Japan, we don't have any legal pressure on making web content accessible
to PwD, even for public sectors. So it has been greatly challenging for us
to promote web accessibility in Japan.

I'd say that it is not easy for any organizations to make WCAG conformance
claim even at Level A. People tend to think that it is "All or Nothing".
When it comes to web accessibility, they won't do anything about
accessibility if they are not likely to make it to achieve the Level A
conformance. Because Level A is the lowest level.

That's why I like the approach which will make many more web pages more
accessible.

Wilco Fiers wrote:
> Ive created a Google spreadsheet to help us see how the cost of audits
disproportionally impact low budget websites:

This is very interesting. Thanks so much for sharing this.

I'd say that "Minutes tested per page" and "Hourly rate a11y tester"
depends on the web pages. If the web page is "simple", then "Minutes" and
"Hourly rate" can be reduced. And "small" web sites with a small budget
tend to be "simple". So "% cost of testing" can be smaller.

Wilco Fiers wrote:
> 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?

The situation in Japan is going to split up into two groups in terms of
"standard practice". One is "Accessibility is the standard quality without
additional cost". The other is "Accessibility is the additional value with
extra cost". It depends on their values, their way of thinking.

What I've seen so far in Japan is the latter attitudes in most cases. There
is a large web design/development company in Japan which assures their
customers of "Level A" quality without extra cost. But it's an
exceptionally rare case.

On the other hand, web professionals in Japan still don't understand what
to do for making their web content accessible. Most of them imagine they
need to do very special things which they won't do normally. And those
things will work only for PwD. WCAG 2 is very very very difficult to
understand. That is the root of all issues we have today.

Once they understand that the basic things like "Easy Checks" stuff which
are NOT special, they might take the former attitude, "standard quality
without additional cost".

Anyway, I prefer the "light" version/level approach which would allow many
more web pages to be more accessible to wider range of users than having
Level A as the lowest hurdle. That would enable organisations with a small
budget to still use Silver.

I hope my English works :-)


Cheers,
Makoto

2018年9月7日(金) 18:56 Wilco Fiers <wilco.fiers@deque.com>:

> 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
>