W3C

Site Navigation

Nearby

Results of Questionnaire Silver Scoring Example

The results of this questionnaire are available to anybody.

This questionnaire was open from 2020-10-08 to 2020-10-13.

11 answers have been received.

Jump to results for question:

Approval to include with FPWD

1. Approval to include with FPWD

Do you approve including this document in the materials that go out with the WCAG 3.0 FPWD?

Summary

Choice	All responders
Choice	Results
Yes, include this document	2
Yes, include this document with the following edits	6
No, do not include this document (Please include reason for not including)	1
Other (Please describe in comments)	2

Details

Responder	Approval to include with FPWD	Comments
Andrew Somers	Yes, include this document with the following edits	First, in Visual Contrast: can/should we put that "non-reading" text like decorative text or a copyright notice or photo byline are excluded? Or that role="none" etc are excluded? My concern is failing a page because a dingbat or ornaments font was used for decoration, and an automated tool rates it inappropriately. Second, regarding the document formatting: should additional elements like headers/footers be added so the presentation of the document is one of an official part of Silver? The formatting is plain at the moment, which can have the psychological impact of "non-official" or taken less seriously or impacting credibility.
Jake Abma	Yes, include this document with the following edits	Good to include an example, but only this one is too simplistic to show if, and how, it really works. The page and checks are a simple and nice 'happy fit', but granularity between different solutions (like Johns headings pages) and conflicting methods and scoring is not part of this example. With only this example we still need much more proof.
Wilco Fiers	No, do not include this document (Please include reason for not including)	I think the outcomes and methods as "early draft" as they are now raise more questions than they answer. The only one that is relatively clear is text alternatives. I don't think explaining how the scores are derives helps. For example, the doc does not explain how the clear words score is calculated. Even stranger is that the score method of captions rates 0 - 3, even though the rating say you can only get 4 if you average a score of 4. My suggestion would be to take out all the stuff on how to come to scores and provide an example that shows how ratings of outcomes are used to generate outcome. Basically only show page 10 - 13 and leave the rest out. We don't want to give the impression the current outcomes / methods are any more than examples of how these things can be structured. --- Unrelated but important. There is no mapping on how to map outcomes to functional categories in WCAG 3. We need to put that into the normative doc somewhere.
Alastair Campbell	Yes, include this document with the following edits	I think we need some kind of large banner at the start saying something like "These are examples of how the system could work in a general sense. The exact wording and examples (e.g. outcomes) are not finalised and will change." And under the Scoring heading "These tables are for demonstrative purposes to explain the process. In the final version there would be many more outcomes and it would likely be in a tool like a spreadsheet or online scoring calculator." Re: Wilco's comment about removing pages 1-9, I think those are important to include otherwise the scores seem out of context. If there are things to improve (e.g. how is clear words calculated), let's update that.
Charles Adams	Yes, include this document
Andrew Kirkpatrick	Yes, include this document with the following edits	A few questions: 1) For the scoring of Guideline 2 - This is a pretty simply written page, and I'm wondering how any page will conform without including a glossary. Also, how will we assess personal names? Does "Staszkiewicz" require a glossary entry but "Smith" wouldn't? This scale provides no incentive to write more simply - just to add a glossary or one-click functionality. 2) I don't think that equating open captions with inaccurate closed captions is appropriate. 3) Guideline 4 requires 96-100% of headings to get the top rating. Perhaps we should just say 100% since the only way for a page to get a 96% is to have one heading missing out of 25 headings needed. Most pages don't have that quantity of headings. I'd like to hear discussion on how well-defined people on the call think this document needs to be.
Laura Carlson	Yes, include this document
Kim Dirks	Yes, include this document with the following edits	No edits, but make sure the format is accessible.
Michael Gower	Other (Please describe in comments)	Especially with just a few scoring examples, I think the scoring examples should be really explicit.For instance, a heading called 'Outcome score' that gives the result, and another called 'Outcome calculation' which shows each piece of the rating on the demo page explicitly. There could be a working sheet, if you are trying to retain a separate outcome document. I worry right now that someone has to do a lot of work to 'get' it. I can live with it as it is, but I think it could be more useful.
Glenda Sims	Yes, include this document with the following edits	I think this simple sample of scoring is very helpful (for humans not deeply involved to wrap their minds around this and give feedback). I +1 Alastair's comments. I wish we could have more validation before we went to CFC...but I won't block forward movement. Please add a note about how many OUTCOMES are expected in WCAG 3.0 (so people will know how small this simple sample is).
David MacDonald	Other (Please describe in comments)	I'm concerned about the "Use common clear words" example. 1) It is deferring to an outside tool which may or may not be accurate. We've historically tried to avoid referring to an outside tool in normative language. Some language experts are critical of language scoring tools because its hard to identify whether something will be hard to understand in context 2) How does it scale across internationalization and other languages? 3) Concerned it will be baked into WCAG 3, if ends up in the first draft before being vetted. I think at least we need a note that this is an attempt to introduce a forward thinking Success Criterion that could not be introduced under the WCAG 2.x model. And that we are looking at feedback about its viability.