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

What if Silver didn't have levels?

From: Léonie Watson <lwatson@tetralogical.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2019 20:17:55 +0100
To: Silver Task Force <public-silver@w3.org>
Cc: "Patrick H. Lauke" <redux@splintered.co.uk>
Message-ID: <13571991-64a6-5fb1-d501-1fe5da78ce60@tetralogical.com>

I was talking with Patrick Lauke this evening, and he mentioned an idea 
that I think is worth thinking about, even though it will likely trigger 

What if we didn't have levels, or points accumulation targets?

The "good", "better", "best" model is problematic:

* The levels are effectively arbitrary, and they're inconsistent 
depending on the nature of your disability/disabilities.

* They're not legal absolutes even when written into law. Cases are 
still argued over nuances and interpretations, regardless of whether a 
target conformance level has been achieved or not.

* The incentive effect, the intent to do better, can be achieved in 
other ways.

What if we just used a single continuous scale, let's say for the 
purposes of this discussion from 0 to 100, without defining "good", 
"better", "best" steps along the way?

The incentive thing still works, it's just that you strive to improve 
your score instead of to get from "good" to "best".

In legal cases the determination can be made on the score, and on the 
basis of the case being made, which is effectively how it works now anyway.

A single continuous scale might help simplify the calculations too. I 
know we're still looking at proposals for points systems, but I'm 
concerned that we're looking at a level of complexity authors and 
testers just won't be able to contend with.


Director @TetraLogical
Received on Tuesday, 15 October 2019 19:18:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:31:46 UTC