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

Re: What if Silver didn't have levels?

From: Léonie Watson <lwatson@tetralogical.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2019 14:17:50 +0100
To: John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com>
Cc: "public-silver@w3.org" <public-silver@w3.org>
Message-ID: <994cb23e-13df-fc84-af0a-5f0e44631681@tetralogical.com>
On 20/10/2019 15:58, John Foliot wrote:
> 
JF wrote:
> (In case it is not clear or well-known, Léonie and I are good friends, 
> and this is written with due respect to my colleague and sister from a 
> different mother)

We are, and that's exactly why this discussion is both welcome and useful.

> 
> Léoniewrites:
> 
>      > As a disabled person I don't want "awesome", I just want "usable",
> 
>     ...and...
> 
>      > which is exactly why I'm championing the idea of getting rid of
>     levels, and having a sliding 0% to 100% scale instead.

JF then wrote:
> Respectfully then, if "awesome" = 100%, what does "usable" equal on that 
> sliding scale? 60%, 70%, 80%, 99%...

100%.

JF wrote:
> This is the challenge, and for regulators, if 99% is too high, and (we 
> suspect) 45% is too low, how do we measure and score usable? Because the 
> moment you peg that as a percentile, you've set the minimum bar for 
> those orgs that are doing accessibility, not for the right reasons, but 
> simply to avoid being sued. I hate that in 2019 that is still a reality 
> (and one I've fought against for decades now), but that is where we are 
> today.

I agree, which is one of the reasons I want to change the way we answer 
that question. Instead of answering "65% or Level AA", I think we should 
answer "100%".

Instead of saying that proper accessibility is "too high", we should say 
"it is what it is".

JF wrote:
> I do not see a tonne of daylight between your (undeclared) definition of 
> "usable" and Minimum Viable Product in this scenario my friend - it's 
> somewhere between perfect and useless, measured as a percentile. Knowing 
> that if perfect = 100%, usable for you will be less than 100% - so how 
> much less? And is that percentile number different based on disability 
> or disabilities?

Leaving what we call it aside for the moment, I think 100% should be a 
set of requirements that collectively give people from different groups 
the best accessibility we can come up with.

The other way to put it, is that I don't think we can (or should) define 
minimum viability, knowing that it will exclude people.

JF wrote:
> Part of the problem is that, in reality, the "acceptable" percentile of 
> accessible will vary based on the individual - because people with 
> disabilities are individuals and not monolithic "user-groups". Yet 
> regulators need a baseline, because for them, the law is (and always 
> will be) a black or white call, whereas in reality, digital 
> accessibility is the million shades of gray.

Right, so instead of setting a baseline that we know excludes people, 
let's not do that next time around.

Léonie.
Received on Monday, 21 October 2019 13:17:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:24:03 UTC