Re: Proposal for new version of Requirement 3.7 Motivtion

Hello all,

Wilco certainly makes good points, but I guess I'm more optimistic than he
is about our ability come up with a process that would allow Silver to give
more importance to usability testing as part of a conformance model,
without negatively impacting certain demographics in the process.

/Denis


*Denis Boudreau, CPWA* | Principal Accessibility SME & Training Lead
| 514-730-9168
Deque Systems - Accessibility for Good
Deque.com <http://www.deque.com>





On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 10:30 AM Shawn Lauriat <lauriat@google.com> wrote:

> Wilco,
>
> 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.
>
>
> Totally agree! We absolutely need conformance to cover different user
> needs and not allow someone to claim conformance for piling up methods for
> one user need and ignoring others. This requirement centers around
> providing a way to demonstrate and express a beyond-the-minimum level of
> accessibility, so building up from a base level of conformance, rather than
> replacing it with "awesome for blind users and broken if you have some kind
> of mobility impairment".
>
> Hope that helps!
>
> -Shawn
>
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 6:54 AM Wilco Fiers <wilco.fiers@deque.com> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>