Re: What if Silver didn't have levels?

Hi everyone,

Léonie, thanks for sharing this.

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

I agree with you on this and I've been thinking about this. If we use this
model, it must be something everybody can get the "best" as the minimum
goal. If it is almost impossible to get "best", then people won't do
anything at all. I've seen "all or nothing" attitudes among web masters all
the time.

I don't want to make it more difficult or complicated to make a conformance
claim. I like the current way of making conformance claim, except for:
-  A single web page basis.
- If I have jusrt one failure against just one SC at AA, it's going to be
Level A conformance (even if it is almost AA conformance!)
- In other words, Level A conformance can have a big fifference.
* For instance, Site A  just met all of Level A SC. And Site B met all of
Level A SC and most of Level AA SC. Then, both sites are "same" Level A
conformance as a result  while the level of accessibility is quite
different.

The following is not perfect. But let me try to share what has been in my
mind.
- Make it compatible with website/web service basis
* In Japan, we adopted the random sampling for the national standard (JIS X
8341-3)
* FYI: Conformance model of JIS X 8341-3:2016 (
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SVDWemejSSBPPqJl4t_KBGeXWsFNWjHv0JW1y6RWgdg/edit?usp=sharing
)
- Specifying one of the comformance level (A, AA or AAA) plus showing the
quality level (incentive)
* The level setting/assignment of Level A, AA and AAA can be changed from
WCAG 2.x. Assuming that, in Silver, different level can be assigned for the
same SC. The conformance levels can be different as well.
- Quality level can be shown by using a single continuous scale "from 0 to
100".
* For instance, a website met Level A and also met some of Level AA plus
they are doing usability testing regularly and so on, then it is going to
be something like "Level A conformance +40". In this example, "+40" would
be the bonus score for the substantial/additional efforts.

Cheers,
Makoto


2019年10月16日(水) 4:18 Léonie Watson <lwatson@tetralogical.com>:

> Everyone,
>
> 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
> protest.
>
> 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.
>
>
> Léonie.
>
> --
> Director @TetraLogical
>
>