Re: What if Silver didn't have levels?

Am 16.10.2019 um 10:44 schrieb Alastair Campbell:
> I still think (but haven't had time to work on this) that it would be best to start at 100 and take away points for barriers, but in either direction I think Silver should set a base level.
> It would also be important to have some guidelines (e.g. flashes) that instantly limit your score to under the level, they have to be dealt with to get to that passing level.

That was more or less the approach we had in the German BITV-Test before 
we aligned it fully to the binary pass/fail WCAG conformance approach in 
March this year. In the old scheme, there was a 5 point lickert scale 
rating subtracting points from a starting score of 100, less for minor 
issues, and full points for critical issues. SCs / checkpoints were 
weighted, e.g. you could lose 3 points for failing 2.1.1 Keyboard, but 
only one point for failing 3.1.2 Language of parts.

The test set the level of 95 (of 100 points) as "highly accessible" and 
90 points (of 100) as "accessible". To prevent showstopper issues from 
passing in otherwise good results, there was a mechanism for deprecating 
the entire test result, so even if the overall result was be above 90, 
when there was a serious issue (CAPTCHA without alternative, keyboard 
trap, important navigation element without accName) the site would not 
be called "accessible".

We had quite a biut of critique for this approach over the years, but 
also the recognition (by others) that the result reflected the degree of 
overall accessibility achieved better than a pass / fail result.


Detlev Fischer
Werderstr. 34, 20144 Hamburg

Mobil +49 (0)157 57 57 57 45
Beratung, Tests und Schulungen für barrierefreie Websites

Received on Wednesday, 16 October 2019 11:46:13 UTC