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

RE: Conformance and method 'levels'

From: Bruce Bailey <Bailey@Access-Board.gov>
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2019 13:20:54 +0000
To: John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com>
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>
Message-ID: <MWHPR22MB0046B008EDD30B410A81407BE3E00@MWHPR22MB0046.namprd22.prod.outlook.com>
I am just replying to a few bits, so not to the last message in the thread.

Yes John, with the 2nd currency model I outlined, the points part is completely compatible with the FICO analog you provided us.  I concur with all of what you write about with regard to the point scoring.

With a 2nd currency, we might even work out how to give more points for harder things than easier things (i.e. AAA sc versus A sc).  Using only points, and with the points representing the baseline, I am pretty sure that means weighting single A sc much, much higher than AAA sc – and that does not feel quite right!

While points could/should be dynamic.  I was imagining that ribbons would be more static.  OTOH, they probably need to have some kind of expiry conditions.  If a web site degrades over time, would the owner still be able to claim a ribbon for a third-party accreditation from five years ago?

The other thing I like about a duel currency approach is that, for site owners who want to do the work, it might make it possible to give large sites more points as compared to simple sites.   For example, two websites might both have Gold (i.e., enough points and ribbons) but the large corporate site has like 5000 more points than the simple site, one because it is picking up one point for each image with a good alt attribute.  If the baseline score for Bronze is 26,300 (as with my strawman below), then being very granular with single points is an option.

From: John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com>
Sent: Saturday, June 22, 2019 10:06 AM
To: Bruce Bailey <Bailey@Access-Board.gov>
Cc: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>; Jeanne Spellman <jspellman@spellmanconsulting.com>; public-silver@w3.org; Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>; Shawn Lauriat <lauriat@google.com>
Subject: Re: Conformance and method 'levels'

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.


(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<mailto: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.
Received on Monday, 24 June 2019 13:21:21 UTC

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