w3c / silver

Accessibility Guidelines "Silver"
https://w3c.github.io/silver/
Other
198 stars 44 forks source link

About Bronze - Silver - Gold and scope of views etc. #217

Open spanchang opened 3 years ago

spanchang commented 3 years ago

Views and processes: It says a view is akin to a Web page. Sowhile evaluating a process the entire Web page(s) is judged, including common header/footer section, right? But then there is a feedback question about whether an image in the footer without an alt is critical to the process. So here is a thought: Grading system: Bronze-Silver-Gold Bronze: should cover specific views and processes for accomplishing task flows / accessing information. parts of Web page, like header nav that enable one to find the particular task or section of interest should also be within the scope of this review. Help documentation linked from the view / process should be within scope Out of scope: Footer sections / banner / complementary sections as long as they pass non-interference requirements.

Silver: Bronze plus Cover all declared scope i.e. including footer / banner etc. sections excluded from bronze

Gold: Silver plus i. Include a mandate to perform usability testing. ii. Passing selective Level AAA SCs

Note: While above appears to be in the context of Web content, it can be applied to software / apps too. Thanks, Sailesh

Myndex commented 3 years ago

Hi @spanchang thank you for commenting.

I am going to respond as to how the conformance model is working right now for Visual Contrast.

All visible text is in scope, except purely decorative (i.e. dingbats of flowers in a line). However, the purpose of a given text element sets different limits and requirements, with further variations per level of conformance.

Brief Overview of Contrasts

In terms of luminance contrast (ignoring size, spatial, hue, and other contrasts) there are four broad categories:

  1. Fluent Readability Contrast
  2. Contrast for Spot Reading
  3. Contrast for non-text objects, images, elements, states (focus), etc.
  4. Purely aesthetic Contrasts.

Number 4 has no requirement other than to not interfere with numbers 1 thru 3. Number 1, readability, has by far the highest contrast requirement as needed to enable whole word recognition in the VWFA (Visual Word Form Area) of the brain. Number 2 is a relaxed contrast requirement as spot reading assumes that letter-by-letter lexical processing is acceptable. Number three is a bit more complicated but typically as relaxed as number 2, but in some cases can be more relaxed, yet in other use cases have a higher contrast requirement.

Use Cases Defined

(A) Fluent Readability:

(B) Spot Reading Level

(C) Non-Text Elements

(UX) Aesthetic Contrast

Conformance Scoring Levels

Preferred

Score 4 — "Ideal Minimum"

Score 3 — "Acceptable Minimum"

Score 2 — "Marginal"

Score 1 — "Poor"

How This Answers Your Comment

The <header> or <footer> does not denote use cases as defined herein. Nor does the <main> or <article> or... you name it.

It is definitely possible (in fact more than likely) that the header will contain text of the page title, and that is definitely a "Case A use case" and the footer could easily have navigational elements that fall under Case A. Meanwhile, <main> or <section> could easily have Case B and Case C elements.

The point is, that at least for Visual Contrast, use cases do not align with the broader semantic markup of sections and other elements. And definitely NOT header! The closest might be footer, but even then, in the conformance model for Visual Contrast, ALL text is in scope, but there are sub-scope requirements that differ based on use case and score level.

It is the USE CASE that is important, not the semantic markup.

Thank you for posting the comment,

Andy

Andrew Somers W3 invited Expert Myndex Color Science Researcher

davidberman commented 2 years ago

I am concerned about both the Anglocentrism (and colorcentrism?) challenges of using the actual terms "Gold", "Silver", and "Bronze" for the levels. Furthermore I’m concerned about unnecessary burden within our industry regarding how we’ll repeatedly express these constructions: I am imagining that professionals will immediately shorten the three tiers to G, S, and B in their documents (in English), and so on. Is this the correct place for me to post this concern, or is it already explored elsewhere?

patrickhlauke commented 2 years ago

I am concerned about both the Anglocentrism (and colorcentrism?) challenges of using the actual terms "Gold", "Silver", and "Bronze" for the levels.

i'd have thought that that categorisation, common throughout international/global sporting events, would be fairly universal

davidberman commented 2 years ago

Thanks for weighing in Patrick; while I agree that the international sport's embracing of the Olympic cliche is universally recognized. However, we are trying to be the best. Relying on colors is not our a11y best... we're almost encouraging people to use non-text indicators in reports. Creating something that won't be instantly recognizable/understandable will be best. We are not giving out medals: we are setting conformance standards that will be cited in regulations as a normative ISO standard. There will be times when "Bronze" will be a regulatory fail rather than "medal-worthy". And sometime "Gold" will be an inappropriate target. And it will still need to be translated. Is this the correct place for me to post this concern, or is it already explored elsewhere?

mbgower commented 2 years ago

At Tuesday's call, the working group had a resolution to remove ratings and scoring in the next charter. When/if that scoring returns in a couple of years, these comments can be brought to consideration again, but for now, I think this issue can be deferred and I have added a label to that effect.

Remove ratings, critical errors, and scorings. Add editor's note similar to 'Critical errors was introduced as a concept in the FPWD. Although it not currently included, AGWG intends to re-asses this concept in the future.'