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

Re: Conformance and method 'levels'

From: John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2019 09:05:39 -0500
Message-ID: <CAKdCpxyttR8gsmkAp5X4QQuTNg5qC15HqW-VwvD9_sT2aniRLw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bruce Bailey <Bailey@access-board.gov>
Cc: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>, Jeanne Spellman <jspellman@spellmanconsulting.com>, "public-silver@w3.org" <public-silver@w3.org>, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>, Shawn Lauriat <lauriat@google.com>
Hi Bruce,

Interesting approach, and personally I have to think on it more, however I
think we are essentially coming from the same place:

   1. "Minimal conformance" requires a baseline of points - *the assignment
   of points to WCAG 2.x SC being our next challenge*
   2. Additional points (and in your model ribbons as well) are earned by
   the site owner, based on positive activities
   3. Points and ribbons "earning" are also holistic in their approach
   4. Because of this, the score will always be 'transitional' - that it
   will be evolving throughout the life-cycle of the site

In your model (points for Requirements, ribbons for Best Practices) do you
envision content owners gaining both points and ribbons over time, or is it
a "start with a points base, and augment that with ribbons only" scenario?
But I do like the idea of rewarding Best Practices as a means of augmenting
the score.

JF

(Back in the day I was a Taurin Druid, specializing in skinning and
leather-work. I had my own private guild called "I'd Rather be Hunting" -
which not everybody got...)

On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 7:51 AM Bruce Bailey <Bailey@access-board.gov>
wrote:

> I am going to suggest something fairly different for the scoring approach
> as such:   I think Silver needs a second “currency” in addition to points.
>
>
>
> Think about how typical it is with mobile games to yes, be scoring points,
> but really how you advance is by unlocking achievements (e.g., earning
> gems).  PC builder games often have a similar mechanic.  With Blizzard’s
> WarCraft, players needed to harvest both gold and wood, and one cannot
> convert gold to wood or vice versa — but the player needed gold before
> starting to harvest wood, and early units/buildings only require gold.
> Starcraft used crystal minerals and “Vespene Gas”, but  the idea was the
> same.
>
>
>
> Keeping with the sporting theme, I will suggest “ribbons” as our second
> currency.  The most concrete normative parts, the Guidelines in Silver,
> would be point based.  The new and best practices behavior we want to
> encourage with Silver could mostly be ribbons.  For example, testing with
> end users earns a ribbon.  Testing with a wholly different set of end users
> earns another ribbon.  Third-party accreditation earns a ribbon.  Posting a
> machine-readable conformance claim is a ribbon.  There are lots of
> examples, and the ribbons might themselves be in different categories
> (colors), so Gold Medal means *X* number of points, and *Y* number of
> ribbons (perhaps with the qualifier that  *Z* number of those ribbons
> must be blue ribbons (with maybe blue ribbons being reserved for user
> testing)).
>
>
>
> I think this helps with moving from WCAG 2x to Silver as well.  Points are
> assigned to WCAG 2x Success Criteria (10,000s of points for each A sc, 100s
> for each AA sc, and single digits for AAA sc (sorry, but mathematically,
> that is how it has to work (at least in the beginning)), but probably
> meeting some AAA sc earn ribbons as well.  Keep in mind that points are per
> site (the unit of conformance), not per page, and not per each element
> passing each SC.
>
>
>
> With this model, a WCAG 2.0 Level AA conforming website might score 26,300
> points (25*10K + 13*100), so we use that as the baseline for earning a
> Bronze for Silver.
>
>
>
> With this model, Silver for Silver could be 26,301 points plus some number
> of ribbons.  Earning Gold for Silver will have to wait on firming up the
> Silver conformance mechanics.
>
>
>
> Websites that are only concerned with Silver rankings would be earning
> points and ribbons from meeting Silver tests, methods, and guidelines.
> Those websites would not need to be evaluated against 2x SC.
>
>
>
> --
> Bruce Bailey
> Accessibility IT Specialist
> U.S. Access Board
> 1331 F Street NW, Suite 1000
> Washington, DC  20004-1111
> 202-272-0024 (voice)
> 202-272-0070 (TTY)
> 202-272-0081 (Fax)
> bailey@access-board.gov
>
>
>
> Thank you for your questions concerning section 508 of the Rehabilitation
> Act Amendments of 1998.  Section 508 authorizes the Access Board to provide
> technical assistance to individuals and Federal departments and agencies
> concerning the requirements of this section.  Technical assistance provided
> in this email is intended solely as informal guidance; it is neither a
> determination of your legal rights or responsibilities, nor a statement of
> the official views of the U.S. Access Board or any other federal agency.
> Any links to non-federal websites are provided as a courtesy and do not
> represent an endorsement of the linked information, products, or services.
>
>
>
> *From:* Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
> *Sent:* Saturday, June 22, 2019 4:44 AM
> *To:* Jeanne Spellman <jspellman@spellmanconsulting.com>;
> public-silver@w3.org
> *Subject:* Re: Conformance and method 'levels'
>
>
>
> Oops, I think I opened the wrong can of worms, I had just meant to point
> to the thread in terms of how drafting the guidelines/methods will be
> heavily influenced by the scoring. I hadn’t meant to get into the scoring
> approach as such.
>
>
>
> -Alastair
>
>
>
> Apologies for typos, sent from a mobile.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* Jeanne Spellman <jspellman@spellmanconsulting.com>
> *Sent:* Friday, June 21, 2019 6:56:00 PM
> *To:* public-silver@w3.org
> *Subject:* Re: Conformance and method 'levels'
>
> Patrick's comment makes a lot of sense to me.
>
> I think we want to be careful about swapping A for Bronze, AA for Silver
> and AAA for Gold.  We want to get away from levels for individual success
> criteria and look at the Bronze Silver Gold as an overall score.  But I get
> the idea that it is low points, medium points and high points.
>
> jeanne
>
> On 6/21/2019 12:00 PM, Alastair Campbell wrote:
>
> 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://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fw3c%2Fwcag%2Fissues%2F782&data=02%7C01%7Cbailey%40access-board.gov%7Cb84a28289d184982ba4108d6f6edf5ca%7Cfc6093f5e55e4f93b2cf26d0822201c9%7C0%7C0%7C636967899227197162&sdata=rWLofezwxZfCifSoushzTXtUgSiCIZnw9gpR%2F00teY4%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
>
> 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://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fw3c%2Fwcag%2Fissues%2F782%23issuecomment-504038948&data=02%7C01%7Cbailey%40access-board.gov%7Cb84a28289d184982ba4108d6f6edf5ca%7Cfc6093f5e55e4f93b2cf26d0822201c9%7C0%7C0%7C636967899227197162&sdata=MC4WfocXDQrX0%2FU4A4lDfUnFdDjtpsHG8iw1Zd0KJC0%3D&reserved=0>
> 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://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nomensa.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cbailey%40access-board.gov%7Cb84a28289d184982ba4108d6f6edf5ca%7Cfc6093f5e55e4f93b2cf26d0822201c9%7C0%7C0%7C636967899227207175&sdata=IlS7bU151rBB70c9y7D3%2FYFLP8815USjQxur3d%2BANVI%3D&reserved=0>
> / @alastc
>
>

-- 
*​John Foliot* | Principal Accessibility Strategist | W3C AC Representative
Deque Systems - Accessibility for Good
deque.com
Received on Saturday, 22 June 2019 14:06:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:31:45 UTC