W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wai-evaltf@w3.org > August 2011

RE: some initial questions from the previous thread

From: Vivienne CONWAY <v.conway@ecu.edu.au>
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 08:55:09 +0800
To: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>, Eval TF <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
Message-ID: <8AFA77741B11DB47B24131F1E38227A98C87BF450D@XCHG-MS1.ads.ecu.edu.au>
Hi all

Looking at Shadi's initial questions

I think our methodology might be expressed to cover a variety of situations.  As some of the other responders mentioned, we often combine individual testing, multiple expert testers, and user-group testing.  I think our methodology statements will need to address the different situations where testing occurs.

Expertise:  From what I've read in the literature, you need at least a basic training in accessibility to be able to test a website.  I have had individuals look at a website with no training just to see what they can pick up.  They normally look at colours, size of text, and even sometimes alternative text for images.  Some of the important things such as captions, structure, skip navigation links etc. aren't obvious to them until we provide some training.  After training, their eyes are opened (so to speak) to the issues and requirements.  They also need to be training in the WCAG 2.0 principles.

User testing:  I am of the opinion that while we can test a website ourselves, using people with disabilities in the testing sheds more light on the importance of the different WCAG principles.  Sometimes some of the things I think are important do not cause certain users any problems.  I am finding that using a team with a variety of disabilities helps enormously.

Scoring: I am currently really unsure about the best way to do the scoring.  Up until now I've been using a pass/fail type of scoring.  However with my research project, I need to develop some kind over percentage score for each POUR principle and then aggregated into an overall score.  I need to find out how to weight the different items as it would seem that not every item should have the same weight.

Confidence score: not sure how this is meant.

Sorry for the length of reply - it requires lots of thought.

Regards

Vivienne L. Conway
________________________________________
From: public-wai-evaltf-request@w3.org [public-wai-evaltf-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Shadi Abou-Zahra [shadi@w3.org]
Sent: Monday, 22 August 2011 7:34 PM
To: Eval TF
Subject: some initial questions from the previous thread

Dear Eval TF,

 From the recent thread on the construction of WCAG 2.0 Techniques, here
are some questions to think about:

* Is the "evaluation methodology" expected to be carried out by one
person or by a group of more than one persons?

* What is the expected level of expertise (in accessibility, in web
technologies etc) of persons carrying out an evaluation?

* Is the involvement of people with disabilities a necessary part of
carrying out an evaluation versus an improvement of the quality?

* Are the individual test results binary (ie pass/fail) or a score
(discrete value, ratio, etc)?

* How are these test results aggregated into an overall score (plain
count, weighted count, heuristics, etc)?

* Is it useful to have a "confidence score" for the tests (for example
depending on the degree of subjectivity or "difficulty")?

* Is it useful to have a "confidence score" for the aggregated result
(depending on how the evaluation is carried out)?


Feel free to chime in if you have particular thoughts on any of these.

Best,
   Shadi

--
Shadi Abou-Zahra - http://www.w3.org/People/shadi/
Activity Lead, W3C/WAI International Program Office
Evaluation and Repair Tools Working Group (ERT WG)
Research and Development Working Group (RDWG)

This e-mail is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient you must not disclose or use the information contained within. If you have received it in error please return it to the sender via reply e-mail and delete any record of it from your system. The information contained within is not the opinion of Edith Cowan University in general and the University accepts no liability for the accuracy of the information provided.

CRICOS IPC 00279B
Received on Wednesday, 24 August 2011 00:55:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:52:11 GMT