W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wai-ert@w3.org > July 2007

[Fwd: Harmonizing text in ATAG 2.0 Checking with EARL Test Modes]

From: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2007 13:50:06 +0200
Message-ID: <4688E66E.8000800@w3.org>
To: public-wai-ert@w3.org

Dear Group,

Last week I had a discussion with Jan Richards who is chairing the 
Authoring Tools WG (AUWG) on harmonizing the description for test modes 
in ATAG 2.0 and in EARL 1.0 Schema. As you may remember, we sent a 
comment [1] to AUWG on their definition of semi-automated checking in 
their previous ATAG 2.0 Last Call Working Draft publication.

At the same time, we also received a comment [2] on our definition of 
the test modes in our recent EARL 1.0 Schema Last Call Working Draft 
publication. This comment has been recorded as Issue #7 [3] and is still 
open for ERT WG discussion.

Please find below a proposal from Jan on harmonizing the text in both 
documents. Send comments and ideas to the list for discussion.

[1] <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2007AprJun/0010>
[2] <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert/2007Apr/0008>
[3] <http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/EARL10/issues#testmode>

Regards,
   Shadi


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Harmonizing text in ATAG 2.0 Checking with EARL Test Modes
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 10:26:19 -0400
From: Jan Richards <jan.richards@utoronto.ca>
To: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>

Hi Shadi,

Following up on our Wednesday conversation, here are some thoughts on
ways that our two groups could harmonize text related to the degree of
automation in accessibility checking:

IN ATAG 2.0 (Glossary definition of: "checking, accessibility (also
called "accessibility evaluation")":

ORIGINAL TEXT AT:
http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2007/WD-ATAG20-20070615/WD-ATAG20-20070615.html#def-Checking

IDEAS FOR REWORDING (changes in CAPS):

The process by which *Web content* is TESTED for THE PRESENCE OF *Web
content accessibility problems*. ATAG 2.0 identifies three MODES of
CHECKING, based on increasing levels of automation:
- NON-AUTOMATED: WHERE THE AUTHORING TOOL ONLY PROVIDES instructions,
LEAVING THE TASKS OF IDENTIFYING POTENTIAL PROBLEM INSTANCES AND
DETERMINING WHETHER ACTUAL PROBLEMS IN FACT EXIST TO AUTHOR JUDGMENT;
- semi-automated: WHERE the authoring tool is able to AUTOMATICALLY
identify potential problem INSTANCES, but WHERE AUTHOR judgment IS STILL
REQUIRED to DECIDE OR TO HELP TO DECIDE whether actual problems exist
(E.G., WHETHER A TABLE IS FOR LAYOUT OR DATA, WHETHER AN IMAGE IS PURE
DECORATION, ETC.); and
- automated: WHERE the authoring tool is able to IDENTIFY problems
automatically, withOUT ANY AUTHOR intervention.
An authoring tool may support any combination of checking types.



IN EARL ("Test Mode" section):

ORIGINAL TEXT AT:
http://www.w3.org/TR/EARL10-Schema/#testmode

IDEAS FOR REWORDING (changes in CAPS):

earl:manual
Where the test was performed based HUMAN judgment. This
includes the case where that judgment was aided BY INSTRUCTIONS PROVIDED
BY a software tool, although this should be additionally noted through
the earl:compoundAssertor class of the Assertor.

earl:semiAutomatic
Where a software tool WAS ABLE TO IDENTIFY POTENTIAL PROBLEM INSTANCES,
BUT WHERE HUMAN judgment WAS STILL REQUIRED TO DECIDE OR HELP TO DECIDE
WHETHER AN ACTUAL PROBLEM EXISTS. This should be additionally noted
through the earl:compoundAssertor class of the Assertor.

earl:automatic
Where a software tool has carried out the test automatically without any
human intervention.

earl:notAvailable
Where a combination of persons and/or software tools was used to carry
out the test, but there is no detailed information about the primary
responsibility for determining the outcome of the test. This includes
when testing is carried out by organizations or groups of assertors, and
the exact testing process is not disclosed.


(THE FOLLOWING IS REALLY A MODIFIER SINCE A HEURISTIC COULD BE APPLIED
MANUALLY, SEMI-AUTOMATICALLY OR AUTOMATICALLY)

earl:heuristic
This property was designed to cover assertions which are made by
inference, for example based on several existing test results.




Thoughts?

Cheers,
Jan

-- 
Jan Richards, M.Sc.
User Interface Design Specialist
Adaptive Technology Resource Centre (ATRC)
Faculty of Information Studies
University of Toronto

   Email: jan.richards@utoronto.ca
   Web:   http://jan.atrc.utoronto.ca
   Phone: 416-946-7060
   Fax:   416-971-2896




-- 
Shadi Abou-Zahra     Web Accessibility Specialist for Europe |
Chair & Staff Contact for the Evaluation and Repair Tools WG |
World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)           http://www.w3.org/ |
Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI),   http://www.w3.org/WAI/ |
WAI-TIES Project,                http://www.w3.org/WAI/TIES/ |
Evaluation and Repair Tools WG,    http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/ |
2004, Route des Lucioles - 06560,  Sophia-Antipolis - France |
Voice: +33(0)4 92 38 50 64          Fax: +33(0)4 92 38 78 22 |
Received on Monday, 2 July 2007 11:53:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:18:28 GMT