Re: Alternative Silver / WCAG 3.0 conformance model proposal

Hi Alastair,

I think I would still prefer to rate SCs (or functional outcomes / FO in 
WCAG 3.0) on the basis of what the best and worst possible 
implementation is for that particular FO, and use those to define the 
end points of the 5 point scale rather that using that scale to also 
reflect priorisation *across* FOs. I think that should be done on 
another level. It may well be that priorisation (or relative weight) of 
FOs depends on contexts and may be defined differently for different 
types of applications, for example.

In my view, what is urgently needed for the scoring model is a separate 
'stop condition' for flagging critical issues. To take an example: SC 
3.1.2 "Language of Parts" (or a related FO) might fail on an 
information-oriented site with some publication titles without lang 
markup (0/5) but that would not be critical for such a site. On the 
other hand, if you are testing an online translation service, failure of 
3.1.2 (0/5) should be flagged as critical, because it is. So, if you 
have a sample of such an application containing the view with the main 
translation function and besides that, 5 other views like FAQ, imprint, 
version history etc., a 5/5 rating on those other views (for lack of 
foreign language content) must not bury the critical issue by raising 
the overall score of 3.1.2 in aggregation across views sampled. Or 
reporting may present the aggregate score, but clearly flag the failure. 
Flagged failures could be used prevent overall conformance of the chosen 
scope if we accept the condition "no critical failures in any functional 
outcome across the sampled views" - but that needs to be debated, of course.

Best,
Detlev

Am 13.08.2020 um 15:25 schrieb Alastair Campbell:
> 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
>
> *Can**Adapt**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
>
>

-- 
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