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) <Jake.Abma@ing.com> Sent: Saturday, June 22, 2019 10:33 AM 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> 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? Cheers, JakeReceived on Monday, 24 June 2019 13:04:40 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:31:45 UTC