Re: Proposal for new version of Requirement 3.7 Motivtion

Hey all,
I am skeptical about a point system as part of a conformance model for
accessibility. I think a point system is a cool idea, but not as part of
the conformance model.

Point systems are great if you have different things you could do, that
lead to roughly the same end result. For example, the airports with bike
racks example is something that keeps coming up. You can do any number of
things to get more people to leave their car at home. Better public
transportation, encourage biking, encourage carpooling, etc. Any one of
them reduces cars, and all of them do it by a lot.

Accessibility doesn't really work like that. Keyboard accessibility and
visible focus aren't interchangeable. Users need both of them. The few
places in WCAG where more than one option is acceptable, we've already left
the solution open (example: Bypass Blocks) or we've specified the available
options (example: Audio Description or Media Alternative).

I can't see us ever agreeing that, if you do more for people with learning
disabilities, you don't need to do as much for people with low vision. Any
point system we use can't be at a conformance layer or guidelines layer. It
has to be narrow, so we don't make the needs of one group interchangeable
with another. That means point systems at the success criteria layer. WCAG
already allows for this. Think of how color contrast is done. Two success
criteria, one at AA, one at AAA, using the same measurement tool, with a
lower threshold for AA and a higher one for AAA.

I can certainly see us having more "point systems" for different
requirements. You could require 8 points for non-text content at level A,
and 12 points at AA or whatever (just making up numbers). It might also be
possible to create a point system that will work for lots of success
criteria. But I don't see that working at the conformance level. A point
system where you exchange one user need for another seems pretty
problematic to me.

W

On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 1:59 PM Denis Boudreau <denis.boudreau@deque.com>
wrote:

> I like the proposal with Chuck’s edits.
>
> I disagree with your position Detlev, but understand your concerns. The
> temptation to game the system would undoubtedly rise from some of the
> people out there that would want to be able to claim a quick path to
> success (oh yeah, we tested with people, and “they” said it was
> fiiiiiiine...).
>
> I’m just not able to agree with a statement such as:
>
> “[testing]... does not in itself change the quality of the site under
> test. An awful site stays awful even after a lot of user testing.”
>
> I believe that conducting testing with people with disabilities, when done
> genuinely with the goal of user experience improvements does absolutely
> change the quality of the site under test. The findings brought up by
> consulting those users is expected to bring forth positive changes. An
> awful site is supposed to get better as a result of the change that come
> from the activity of involving those users in the process. That’s just the
> nature of the activity. But we need a way to measure that clearly in Silver.
>
> I celebrate our vision of rewarding usability testing with end users with
> disabilities. It does expose our model to abuse - I certainly share
> Detlev’s concerns here - but I’m sure that as we get to defining the
> details of how the scoring system will pan out, we’ll find ways to reward
> usability testing for aspects that actually provide value, not for things
> that pay lip service to the idea of making the product or service
> accessible.
>
> As an example, we could consider pairing aspects of the usability testing
> sessions with tangible results or improvements that came directly from this
> testing. That way, the testing outcomes and related improvements could be
> linked to specific methods for instance, or techniques or whatnot, and we
> could measure just how many of the improvements came directly from
> involving end users with disabilities in the overall process. The more
> improvements came out direct end users contributions, the higher the points.
>
>
> /Denis
>
> —
> Denis Boudreau
> Principal accessibility SME & Training lead
> Deque Systems, Inc.
> 514-730-9168
>
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 04:30 Detlev Fischer <detlev.fischer@testkreis.de>
> wrote:
>
>> As I have said before, I think the mere fact that testing with users
>> with disabilities has taken place should not be rewarded since it does
>> not in itself change the quality of the site under test. An awful site
>> stays awful even after a lot of user testing. If then, as a result of
>> such testing, the accessibility and/or usability is improved, that
>> should impact also the conformance to measurable criteria (whether
>> absolute or score-based) - and I am happy to see those criteria extended
>> to realms so far difficult to measure.
>>
>> Am 08.04.2019 um 20:42 schrieb Jeanne Spellman:
>> > Here is the proposal for revision of Requirement 3.7 Motivation as
>> > requested by AGWG to make it measureable.
>> >
>> > Motivation
>> >
>> > The Guidelines motivate organizations to go beyond minimal
>> > accessibility requirements by providing a scoring system that rewards
>> > organizations that demonstrate a greater effort to improve
>> > accessibility.  For example, Methods that go beyond the minimum (such
>> > as: Methods for Guidelines that are not included in WCAG 2.x A or AA,
>> > task-completion evalations, or testing with users with disabilities)
>> > are worth more points in the scoring system.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> --
>> Detlev Fischer
>> Testkreis
>> Werderstr. 34, 20144 Hamburg
>>
>> Mobil +49 (0)157 57 57 57 45
>>
>> http://www.testkreis.de
>> Beratung, Tests und Schulungen für barrierefreie Websites
>>
>>
>> --
> /Denis
>
> --
> Denis Boudreau
> Principal SME & trainer
> Web accessibility, inclusive design and UX
> Deque Systems inc.
> 514-730-9168
>
> Keep in touch: @dboudreau
>


-- 
*Wilco Fiers*
Axe product owner - Co-facilitator WCAG-ACT - Chair ACT-R / Auto-WCAG