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

Re: Summary & Minutes of Silver Conformance meeting 22 October 2019

From: Abma, J.D. (Jake) <Jake.Abma@ing.com>
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2019 13:45:34 +0000
To: Jeanne Spellman <jspellman@spellmanconsulting.com>, Silver Task Force <public-silver@w3.org>
Message-ID: <AM6PR03MB4454475DFE7F712ED23C2260F1670@AM6PR03MB4454.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com>

A short note on the 2 points made:

"The reason that subtractive was rejected during the conformance prototyping phase was;"

1) difficult to expand to meet changing requirements

Do not think this is a proper justification to reject. A subtractive point system is used for every test in our school system / certification levels. This works perfectly fine for decades where changing requirements are part of every grade / teaching  system / level of difficulty and progressive learning curriculum. Expanding per se is not an issue at all.

2) doesn't give a good on-ramp to beginners because it starts with perfect accessibility

A perfect score is indeed 100% / or 100 / or a 10 when you contract points for your system. But either way, a contracting system where you score a 4 out of 10 or a points adding system where you only score 320 out of 800 as a beginner, the result seems to be the same compared to what's possible.

So I'm not saying / my own meaning / is that  we should do a subtractive system, but the reasons given to reject one over the other are not very solid (and should not be ruled out so easily).

Cheers,
Jake

________________________________
From: Jeanne Spellman <jspellman@spellmanconsulting.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2019 2:47 AM
To: Silver Task Force <public-silver@w3.org>
Subject: Summary & Minutes of Silver Conformance meeting 22 October 2019

There was no scribe for the meeting.

== Summary ==

The question was raised why we have to have conformance at all. It isn't
required by W3C anymore, but it does provide assistance to regulators
who want to require minimums and accessibility advocates who want to
ensure that a balance exists across different disability groups.

Some members liked a subtractive method. The reason that subtractive was
rejected during the conformance prototyping phase was that it is 1)
difficult to expand to meet changing requirements and 2) doesn't give a
good on-ramp to beginners because it starts with perfect accessibility
(which the Silver research showed was a concern to many stakeholders)
and then subtracts points for every infraction.  Some solutions were
proposed: Having a separate point system for beginners and providing
some scoring for partial conformance of individual success criteria.

We discussed the VPAT conformance method and the advantages and
disadvantages of VPAT. Chris Law of ITI is proposing a new VPAT model,
but no one in the group has seen it yet.  One person proposed a dual
track where organizations who wanted a checklist or to do the minimum
could claim conformance using individual guidelines, and other
organizations who have difficulty with the checklist method could score
points through task completion testing that would demonstrate that
people from the different functional need areas would be able to
complete the tasks of the product or site.

== Minutes ==

there was no scribe for the meeting.  The minutes show who attended.

https://www.w3.org/2019/10/22-silver-conf-minutes.html



-----------------------------------------------------------------
ATTENTION:
The information in this e-mail is confidential and only meant for the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, don't use or disclose it in any way. Please let the sender know and delete the message immediately.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Sunday, 27 October 2019 13:45:41 UTC

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