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,
Jake