Re: Levels of Conformance discussed on April 10, April 17, 2020

Hi David,

Thank you for the update and good to see this is discussed multiple times.
I see the value of different levels and also see the value of sometimes
have 3, sometimes 5 or even more depending on the tasks to evaluate and
also the expertise of the evaluators in specific systems.

Sadly I wasn't present at the TF meeting, was this the Friday meeting?
The last sentence talk about consensus but consensus by whom exactly?

In general I see that for the WCAG WG 5 may be applicable and
understandable, for the average WCAG user I question if 5 may be too much.
My first impression would be that 3, like: low, medium, high on severity
would be enough to get a good score and good understanding of the average
WCAG user.

Can the people present in the call show why 3 is not being enough before
having consensus?
Might it be better to first have some data present for guidelines we can
test before having consensus?

Cheers,
Jake


Op zo 19 apr. 2020 om 21:53 schreef David Fazio <dfazio@helixopp.com>:

> Jeanne asked me to send an email to the list about the conversation we
> have had about levels of conformance, on the last 2 calls. Please see
> below...
>
>
>
> During the last 2 Silver TF meetings we discussed selecting a range of
> accessibility from inaccessible to good enough to superior. I suggested we
> benchmark off of neuropsychological evaluations since they run a myriad of
> comprehensive tests that rate on a similar scale to determine the
> functional capacity of individuals. John Foliot liked the idea, and
> suggested we select 5 levels (3 being not enough, 7 being too many). John
> also asked me provide insight on how many levels I’ve seen in neuropsyche
> evals, since I offered to use mine from over the years, as a benchmark.
> Over the last 24 years I have seen the following 9 levels, in various tests:
>
> Impaired,
>
>
>
> Mildly impaired,
>
>
>
> Moderately impaired,
>
>
>
> Severely impaired,
>
>
>
> Average,
>
>
>
> Low average,
>
>
>
> High average,
>
>
>
> Superior,
>
>
>
> Very superior.
>
>
>
> At the last Silver TF meeting there was consensus for John’s suggestion to
> select 5 levels.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>