W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-silver@w3.org > June 2019

Re: Conformance and method 'levels'

From: Léonie Watson <lw@tetralogical.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2019 11:49:56 +0100
To: John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com>, "Hall, Charles (DET-MRM)" <Charles.Hall@mrm-mccann.com>
Cc: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>, Silver Task Force <public-silver@w3.org>, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
Message-ID: <4d5bc427-c5c8-030e-63bd-897a3a0168b2@tetralogical.com>
I like the continuum model JF proposes. It's a more accurate reflection 
of the web than a static A, B, or C model. It also gives people a clear 
idea of how much they need to do to reach the next range/level, and that 
is much more encouraging.


I also like the idea of making quality a factor in the points 
calculation. Taking captions as an example, and with the caveat that I 
haven't given this much thought, it might be that points are awarded in 
increasing numbers for: automated captions, human captions, human 
captions with personalisation capability (for position, font size etc.).


Léonie.

On 21/06/2019 23:36, John Foliot wrote:
> Hi Charles,
> 
> I for one am under the same understanding, and I see it as far more 
> granular than just Bronze, Silver or Gold plateaus, but that rather, 
> through the accumulation of points (by doing good things) you can 
> advance from Bronze, to Silver to Gold - not for individual pages, but 
> rather **for your site**.  (I've come to conceptualize it as similar to 
> your FICO score, which numerically improves or degrades over time, yet 
> your score is still always inside of a "range" from Bad to Excellent: 
> increasing your score from 638 to 687 is commendable and a good stretch, 
> yet you are still only - and remain - in the "Fair" range, so stretch 
> harder still).
> 
> image.png
> [alt: a semi-circle graph showing the 4 levels of FICO scoring: Bad, 
> Fair, Good, and Excellent, along with the range of score values 
> associated to each section. Bad is a range of 300 points to 629 points, 
> Fair ranges from 630 to 689 points, Good ranges from 690 to 719 points, 
> and excellent ranges from 720 to 850 points.]
> 
> I've also arrived at the notion that your score is never going to be a 
> "one-and-done" numeric value, but that your score will change based on 
> the most current data available* (in part because we all know that web 
> sites [sic] are living breathing organic things, with content changes 
> being pushed at regular - in some cases daily or hourly - basis.)
> 
> This then also leads me to conclude that your "Accessibility Score" will 
> be a floating points total with those points being impacted not only by 
> specific "techniques", but equally (if not more importantly) by 
> functional outcomes. And so the model of:
> 
>   * /Bronze: EITHER provide AD or transcript____/
>   * /Silver: provide AD and transcript____/
>   * /Gold: Provide live transcript or live AD./
> 
> 
> ...feels rather simplistic to me. Much of our documentation */_speaks of 
> scores_/* (which I perceive to be numeric in nature), while what 
> Alastair is proposing is simply Good, Better, Best - with no actual 
> "score" involved.
> 
> Additionally, nowhere in Alastair's metric is there a measurement for 
> "quality" of the caption, transcript or audio description (should there 
> be? I believe yes), nor for that matter (in this particular instance) a 
> recognition of the two very varied approaches to providing 'support 
> assets' to the video: in-band or out-of-band (where in-band = the assets 
> are bundled inside of the MP4 wrapper, versus out-of-band, where 
> captions and Audio Descriptions are declared via the <track> element.) 
>  From a "functional" perspective, providing the assets in-band, while 
> slightly harder to do production-wise, is a more robust technique (for 
> lots of reasons), so... do we reward authors with a "better" score if 
> they use the in-band method? And if yes, how many more "points" do they 
> get (and why that number?) If no, why not? For transcripts, does 
> providing the transcript as structured HTML earn you more points over 
> providing the transcript as a .txt file?  A PDF? (WCAG 2.x doesn't seem 
> to care about that) Should it?
> 
> (* This is already a very long email, so I will just state that I have 
> some additional ideas about stale-dating data as well, as I suspect a 
> cognitive walk-through result from 4 years ago likely has little-to-no 
> value today...)
> 
> ******************
> In fact, if we're handing out points, how many points **do** you get for 
> minimal functional requirement for "Accessible Media" (aka "Bronze"), 
> and what do I need to do to increase my score to Silver (not on a single 
> asset, but across the "range" of content - a.k.a.pages - scoped by your 
> conformance claim) versus Gold?
> 
> Do you get the same number of points for ensuring that the language of 
> the page has been declared (which to my mind is the easiest SC to meet) 
> - does providing the language of the document have the same impact on 
> users as ensuring that Audio Descriptions are present and accurate? If 
> (like me) you believe one to be far more important than the other, how 
> many points do either requirement start with (as a representation of 
> "perfect" for that requirement)? For that matter, do we count up or down 
> in our scoring (counting up = minimal score that improves, counting down 
> = maximum score that degrades)?
> 
> (ProTip: I'd also revisit the MAUR 
> <https://www.w3.org/TR/media-accessibility-reqs/> for ideas on how to 
> improve your score for Accessible Media, which is more than just 
> captions and audio description).
> 
> Then, of course, is the conundrum of "page scoring" versus "site 
> scoring", where a video asset is (likely) displayed on a "page", and 
> perhaps there are multiple videos on multiple pages, with accessibility 
> support ranging from "Pretty good" on one example, to "OMG that is 
> horrible" on another example... how do we score that on a site-level 
> basis? If I have 5 videos on my site, and one has no captions, 
> transcripts or Audio Descriptions (AD), two have captions and no AD or 
> transcripts, one has captions and a transcript but no AD, and one has 
> all the required bits (caption, AD, transcript)... what's my score? Am I 
> Gold, Bronze, or Silver? Why?
> 
> And if I clean up 3 of those five videos above, but leave the other two 
> as-is, do I see an increase in my score? If yes, by how much? Why? Do I 
> get more points for cleaning up the video that lacks AD _and_ transcript 
> versus not as many points for cleaning up the the video that just needs 
> audio descriptions? Does adding audio descriptions accrue more points 
> than just adding a transcript? Can points, as numeric values, also 
> include decimal points? (i.e. 16.25 'points' out of a maximum number 
> available of 25)? Is this the path we are on?
> 
> *Scoring is *everything** if we are moving to a Good, Better, Best model 
> for all of our web accessibility conformance reporting. Saying you are 
> at "Silver", without knowing explicitly how you got there will be a 
> major hurdle that we'll need to be able to explain.
> 
> It is for these reasons that I have volunteered to help work on the 
> conformance model, as I am of the opinion that all the other migration 
> work will eventually run into this scoring issue as a major blocker: no 
> matter which existing SC I consider, I soon arrive at variants of the 
> questions above (and more), all related to scalability, techniques, 
> impact on different user-groups, and our move from page conformance 
> reporting to site conformance reporting, and a sliding scale of "points" 
> that we've yet to tackle - points that will come to represent Bronze, 
> Silver and Gold.
> 
> JF
> 
> On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 12:53 PM Hall, Charles (DET-MRM) 
> <Charles.Hall@mrm-mccann.com <mailto:Charles.Hall@mrm-mccann.com>> wrote:
> 
>     I understand the logical parallel. ____
> 
>     __ __
> 
>     However, my understanding (perhaps influenced by my own intent) of
>     the point system is not directly proportional to the number of
>     features (supported by methods) added or by the difficulty
>     associated with adding them, but instead based on meeting functional
>     needs. In this example, transcription, captioning and audio
>     description (recorded) may all be implemented but still only have
>     sufficient points to earn silver. While addressing the content
>     itself to be more understandable by people with cognitive issues or
>     intersectional needs would be required for sufficient points to earn
>     gold. The difference being people and not methods.____
> 
>     __ __
> 
>     Am I alone in this view?____
> 
>     __ __
> 
>     __ __
> 
>     *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, Birmingham MI 48009 ____
> 
>     mrm-mccann.com <https://www.mrm-mccann.com/>____
> 
>     __ __
> 
>     MRM//McCann____
> 
>     Relationship Is Our Middle Name____
> 
>     __ __
> 
>     Ad Age Agency A-List 2016, 2017, 2019____
> 
>     Ad Age Creativity Innovators 2016, 2017____
> 
>     Ad Age B-to-B Agency of the Year 2018____
> 
>     North American Agency of the Year, Cannes 2016____
> 
>     Leader in Gartner Magic Quadrant 2017, 2018, 2019____
> 
>     Most Creatively Effective Agency Network in the World, Effie 2018,
>     2019____
> 
>     __ __
> 
>     __ __
> 
>     __ __
> 
>     *From: *Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com
>     <mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com>>
>     *Date: *Friday, June 21, 2019 at 12:01 PM
>     *To: *Silver Task Force <public-silver@w3.org
>     <mailto:public-silver@w3.org>>
>     *Subject: *[EXTERNAL] Conformance and method 'levels'
>     *Resent-From: *Silver Task Force <public-silver@w3.org
>     <mailto:public-silver@w3.org>>
>     *Resent-Date: *Friday, June 21, 2019 at 12:01 PM____
> 
>     __ __
> 
>     Hi everyone,____
> 
>     ____
> 
>     I think this is a useful thread to be aware of when thinking about
>     conformance and how different methods might be set at different
>     levels:____
> 
>     https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/782
>     <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_w3c_wcag_issues_782&d=DwMGaQ&c=Ftw_YSVcGmqQBvrGwAZugGylNRkk-uER0-5bY94tjsc&r=FbsK8fvOGBHiAasJukQr6i2dv-WpJzmR-w48cl75l3c&m=qRlBlL2XbaOAr9ZQ1gk036BFzRHfv3et7ZuRCfnYttk&s=81tZlSYylHRs1Awy147BMGnUzy0MuO6s7Qk5IO0FhoU&e=>
>     ____
> 
>     ____
> 
>     It is about multimedia access, so the 1.2.x section in WCAG 2.x. You
>     might think that it is fairly straightforward as the solutions are
>     fairly cut & dried (captions, transcripts, AD etc.)____
> 
>     ____
> 
>     However, the tricky bit is at what level you require different
>     solutions. ____
> 
>     ____
> 
>     If you had a guideline such as “A user does not need to see in order
>     to understand visual multimedia content”, then Patrick’s levelling
>     in one of the comments
>     <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_w3c_wcag_issues_782-23issuecomment-2D504038948&d=DwMGaQ&c=Ftw_YSVcGmqQBvrGwAZugGylNRkk-uER0-5bY94tjsc&r=FbsK8fvOGBHiAasJukQr6i2dv-WpJzmR-w48cl75l3c&m=qRlBlL2XbaOAr9ZQ1gk036BFzRHfv3et7ZuRCfnYttk&s=eQu0fdZeTflKCDpdR_3mguGA09aq52UmWnQTBdPRhjE&e=>
>     makes sense:____
> 
>       * Bronze: EITHER provide AD or transcript____
>       * Silver: provide AD and transcript ____
>       * Gold: Provide live transcript or live AD.____
> 
>     ____
> 
>     I raise this as if you read the thread, you’ll see how the levels
>     impacted the drafting of the guidelines, and I think we’ll have a
>     similar (or more complex?) dynamic for the scoring in Silver, and
>     how methods are drafted.____
> 
>     ____
> 
>     Kind regards,____
> 
>     ____
> 
>     -Alastair____
> 
>     ____
> 
>     -- ____
> 
>     ____
> 
>     www.nomensa.com
>     <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.nomensa.com_&d=DwMGaQ&c=Ftw_YSVcGmqQBvrGwAZugGylNRkk-uER0-5bY94tjsc&r=FbsK8fvOGBHiAasJukQr6i2dv-WpJzmR-w48cl75l3c&m=qRlBlL2XbaOAr9ZQ1gk036BFzRHfv3et7ZuRCfnYttk&s=KYOhqBbA2ZqPfWqucl5pHqD50APEkM1wkeBHHBrRswc&e=>
>     / @alastc____
> 
>     ____
> 
>     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.
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> *John Foliot* | Principal Accessibility Strategist | W3C AC Representative
> Deque Systems - Accessibility for Good
> deque.com <http://deque.com/>
> 

-- 
@TetraLogical TetraLogical.com
Received on Saturday, 22 June 2019 10:50:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:24:00 UTC