lauracarlson
commented
3 years ago Thank you for your comment. Project members are working on your comment. You may see discussion in the comment thread and we may ask for additional information as we work on it. We will mark the official response when we are finished and close the issue.
Deque recommends only using scaled scoring for outcomes that can not be tested using true/false or other less labor-intensive testing methods. These should not be scored per view, but in a way that fits with how an issue would likely be reported. For example if a page has two articles written by different authors, the reading level of each article should be scored separately, not as an aggregate of them.
Scoring, when done manually, is far more costly than recording a pass or fail after the first (or the first few, or all) occurrences of issues on a page. The added granularity necessary for a conformance audit using the proposed model will mean an auditor will need to collect much more data than they had to for WCAG 2. This will take more effort, and so increase the price of auditing for WCAG 3.
The proposed scoring model seems pretty far removed from how many organizations track their accessibility. For many organizations, the measure of success is around numbers of issues, each of them assigned an impact. This seems like a more viable candidate to base a conformance model around, although here too it would be helpful not to make scoring / assigning impact for each issue mandatory, since this is time consuming work that would be difficult to do consistently. Total numbers of issues is a commonly used way to track accessibility over time. This is already in use, which would help adoption.