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

Re: What if Silver didn't have levels?

From: Jason Khurdan <jkhurdan@echo.rutgers.edu>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2019 14:10:29 +0000
To: John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com>, "lwatson@tetralogical.com" <lwatson@tetralogical.com>
CC: "public-silver@w3.org" <public-silver@w3.org>
Message-ID: <DM6PR14MB2380AE034122D74E6AAFBF1BFA690@DM6PR14MB2380.namprd14.prod.outlook.com>
Dear all,

First-time caller, long-time listener here. I really like the idea that was developed early on of creating 'recipe cards', which broke out the objectives by type of role that created accessible content. I like that however as an evaluation to the standards. I think it's necessary in conjunction with that to have an assessment that is non-linear (a great book to read about that is Anti-fragile). By this, as technology changes, coding languages changes, it remains viable without having to make new additions. I think this is the direction we continue to find ourselves searching for, and I think its a great one.

In regards to that, and the idea of good, better, great (or the demerit system below), what if it was determined by a grid-based on user and end objective. For example disability types (which can be a finite list) vs actions in the example below, and the grade was simply: Barriers exist, No barriers exist, and multi-means of expressions exist. You could provide a 1-3 grade for each, and then end up with a total score allowing you to have the same concept of developing grades similar to the A, AA, AAA standards.  The 'recipe cards' would then be used as the means of evaluation.

Access Content
Interact with content




The idea might be too simplified, but I thought I'd share. I think you all are doing great work! Thank you for all the hours you have put in.


From: Léonie Watson <lwatson@tetralogical.com>
Sent: Monday, October 21, 2019 9:17 AM
To: John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com>
Cc: public-silver@w3.org <public-silver@w3.org>
Subject: Re: What if Silver didn't have levels?

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%...


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.

Received on Monday, 21 October 2019 16:23:45 UTC

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