Fwd: Feedback on WCAG-EM

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Feedback on WCAG-EM
Resent-Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 08:30:40 +0000
Resent-From: public-wai-evaltf@w3.org
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 13:47:00 -0400
From: Dylan Barrell <dylan.barrell@deque.com>
To: public-wai-evaltf@w3.org

The scoring methodology "Step 5.c" is recommending a performance score that
has very little connection with the actual accessibility of a site for any
score that is less than 100%.

The reason for this is simple:

It is possible for a web site login page to pass every guideline except
guideline 2.1.1 under your proposed scoring mechanism, this page would
obtain a score of 91.6%, however it would be totally unusable by a keyboard
only user.

On another page, there might be dozens of missing alt attributes on images
that are purely deco rational, plus some structural markup problems in the
footer, color contrast issues on UI components not central to use of the
functionality etc. and the score would be lower, but most users with
disabilities would have no problem using the site.

The only valuable scoring methodology is one which takes into account the
impact of the issues discovered on a page and/or site. Issues that will
stop any disability group from fulfilling the use case for which the page
and or site is designed should be marked as "Critical" or "Blocker". Any
page with an issue of this nature should receive a score of 0.

Other issue severities could be formulated each with its own score and the
page and a site overall could be scored using this methodology. This score
would then more closely reflect the actual utility of the site to the
overall community of users with disabilities.

Best Regards
--Dylan
VP Development, Deque Systems Inc.

-- 
Download FireEyes Free: http://www.deque.com/products/worldspace-fireeyes

Received on Monday, 25 March 2013 09:45:50 UTC