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

Re: Fwd: Additional Point/Question: problem centered / page centered evaluation

From: Detlev Fischer <fischer@dias.de>
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 09:58:24 +0200
Message-ID: <4E5DE9A0.9050703@dias.de>
To: public-wai-evaltf@w3.org
Am 30.08.2011 11:05, schrieb Shadi Abou-Zahra:

Here a few issues we might discuss on Thursday regarding requirements. I 
promise to be brief this time!  :-)

(1) Do we agree that we need a way to flag as *critical* particular 
instances in the test case (the pages under evaluation), meaning that a 
critical failure (e.g., a keyboard trap) fails the page / site? 
regardless of the quality of the rest of atomic SC tests?

(2) Do we agree that tests should be documented in principle and 
whenever possible (both page tested and related test results) so that 
the results can be checked and verified independently?

(3) Since "TECHNIQUES ARE NEVER REQUIRED IN ORDER TO MEET WCAG" (quote 
WCAG Myths text) and "The only thing .. is to meet the success criteria 
and conformance requirements.." -- is it meaningful to derive atoms of 
testing from the techniques?

(4) Are failures a firmer starting point (at least if a failure occurs, 
the SC is not met)? Some consider failures informative, others see more 
in them. WCAG seem a bit vague as to their status.

(5) Can we agree that a score of just TRUE or FALSE per SC and 
particular page is insufficient / too coarse / not helpful for customers 
we want to act as a result of the test?

(6) Can we agree that especially negative results per SC and page should 
be commented meaningfully so the rationale for the judgement is laid 
open for others to understand (or contest)?

(7) As to "page-centred or not", we experience the problems of a 
page-centric approach in many of our tests, especially with dynamic 
sites, but it also has advantages (eg., having the page URI allows 
linking comment and the instance tested). Documenting a compex series of 
HttpRequests may get too complex? What are the alternatives? We should 
discuss that.

Detlev

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Additional Point/Question: problem centered / page centered
> evaluation
> Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 08:21:34 +0000
> From: Kerstin Probiesch <mail@barrierefreie-informationskultur.de>
> To: <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
>
> Dear Eval TF,
>
> I want to add the following question: should we recommend a problem
> centered
> or a page centered approach? In my opinion this question is not only
> essential for further discussions about single questions and topics
> (true/false, rankings, involve people with disabilities) but essential for
> the whole methodology.
>
> Regs
>
> Kerstin
>
>
> -------------------------------------
> Kerstin Probiesch - Freie Beraterin
> Barrierefreiheit, Social Media, Webkompetenz
> Kantstraße 10/19 | 35039 Marburg
> Tel.: 06421 167002
> E-Mail: mail@barrierefreie-informationskultur.de
> Web: http://www.barrierefreie-informationskultur.de
>
> XING: http://www.xing.com/profile/Kerstin_Probiesch
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/kprobiesch
> ------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Detlev Fischer PhD
DIAS GmbH - Daten, Informationssysteme und Analysen im Sozialen
Geschäftsführung: Thomas Lilienthal, Michael Zapp

Telefon: +49-40-43 18 75-25
Mobile: +49-157 7-170 73 84
Fax: +49-40-43 18 75-19
E-Mail: fischer@dias.de

Anschrift: Schulterblatt 36, D-20357 Hamburg
Amtsgericht Hamburg HRB 58 167
Geschäftsführer: Thomas Lilienthal, Michael Zapp
---------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Wednesday, 31 August 2011 08:00:12 GMT

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