Re: Alternative Silver / WCAG 3.0 conformance model proposal

Thanks for that Detlev,

I'm not sure if your proposal would actually be simpler overall (compared to where the others might get to), but I really like some aspects like the "Adjectival or 5 point scoring" slide. That explains something where there are many options in a very straightforward way.

It occurs to me that some prioritisation could be built into that with much less controversy.

For example, having flashes on the view scores 0/5. If we decided that "language of the page" (environment, whatever) was less of an issue, it could score 2/5. (Or 3 if the user group is known and the default works?)

That's a hypothetical, just pointing out that when you have finer gained scoring than pass/fail there is inherent prioritisation /within/ the guidelines, no need for a separate prioritisation.

Cheers,

Alastair


Apologies for typos, sent from a mobile.
________________________________
From: David MacDonald <david@can-adapt.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2020 5:30:48 PM
To: Detlev Fischer <detlev.fischer@testkreis.de>
Cc: WCAG group <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Alternative Silver / WCAG 3.0 conformance model proposal

Hi Detlev

I really like your direction, and it shows a lot of thought and work.

Cheers,
David MacDonald



CanAdapt Solutions Inc.

Mobile:  613.806.9005

LinkedIn
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>

twitter.com/davidmacd<http://twitter.com/davidmacd>

GitHub<https://github.com/DavidMacDonald>

www.Can-Adapt.com<http://www.can-adapt.com/>



  Adapting the web to all users

            Including those with disabilities

If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy<http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>


On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 6:41 AM Detlev Fischer <detlev.fischer@testkreis.de<mailto:detlev.fischer@testkreis.de>> wrote:
For those who were not present in yesterday's conformance deep dive, I
just want to put the link to an alternative proposal that I have now
outlined in response to the 2 existing proposals by Rachael and John.

I fear that in both proposals discussed so far, the scoring approach
will be very complex and hard to understand. I am also uncertain whether
the complete revamp of the structure into guidelines/methods is justified.

My proposal tries to envisage WCAG 3.0 more as an extension of WCAG 2.X,
turning pass/fail into a graded scoring scheme with 5 points (what has
been called 'adectival rating'). In that way, it supports the inclusion
of new success criteria that are not easily amenable to a pass/fail
rating. The proposal also allows the definition of paths (based on user
tasks) as an aggregate for scoping conformance claims.

Here is the link:
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1dV1moNnq-56sS1o84UCKkc_g-gE10X6Y/

This is just a sketch, and hopefully a basis for discussing alternatives
that seem to me more workable than what we have so far.

Detlev

--
Detlev Fischer
DIAS GmbH
(Testkreis is now part of DIAS GmbH)

Mobil +49 (0)157 57 57 57 45

http://www.dias.de
Beratung, Tests und Schulungen für barrierefreie Websites