RE: Conformance and method 'levels'

I am just replying to a few bits, so not to the last message in the thread.

Jake, I like what you outline below.  The difficulty I think is ensuring that a baseline (close enough to WCAG 2.0 Level AA) is kept with all the other factors also scoring points.  I think a second currency (for achievements) greatly simplifies this difficulty)

With your strawman below, for example, suppose the “Original WCAG score” is 50/100 – so not really close enough to WCAG 2.0 Level AA – but four other factors score 100/100.  Your net score is then 90/100, which seems pretty good!  But is it?

From: Abma, J.D. (Jake) <>
Sent: Saturday, June 22, 2019 10:33 AM
To: John Foliot <>; Hall, Charles (DET-MRM) <>
Cc: Alastair Campbell <>; Silver Task Force <>; Andrew Kirkpatrick <>
Subject: Re: Conformance and method 'levels'

Just some thoughts:

I do like all of the ideas from all of you but are they really feasible?

With feasible I mean in terms of time to test, money spend, the difficulty of compiling a score and the expertise to judge all of this?

I would love to see a simple framework with clear categories for valuing content, like:​

  *   ​Original WCAG score => pass/fail                         ​= 67/100
  *   How often do pass/fails occur => not often / often / very often
  *   = 90/100
  *   What is the severity of the fails => not that bad / bad / blocking
  *   = 70/10
  *   How easy it is to finish a task => easy / average / hard​​                         = 65/100
  *   What is the quality of the translations / alternative text, etc.         = 72/100
  *   How understandable is the content => easy / average / hard
  *   = 55/100
Total = 69/100

And then also thinking about feasibility of this kind of measuring.
Questions like: will it take 6 times as long to test as an audit now? Will only a few people in the world be able to judge all categories sufficiently?


Received on Monday, 24 June 2019 13:04:40 UTC