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

Some thoughts on progress

From: RichardWarren <richard.warren@userite.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 23:23:50 +0100
Message-ID: <60A02ECA435B40069FA546A7685DB099@DaddyPC>
To: "Shadi Abou-Zahra" <shadi@w3.org>, "Eval TF" <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
Sorry I was late last week, I will try to be better organised in future.

Having read the minutes and other discussions I would like to contribute my 
thoughts on the initial task Shadi set of listing the "requirements for the 
evaluation methodology". At this point I believe we should be looking 
primarily at what the methodology will achieve, not necessarily how it 
achieves it. From what I have read and heard I believe the consensus is that 
the requirement should read something like :-

"A methodology to enable anyone who is 'suitably qualified/experience' to 
produce a consistent and reliable evaluation of a website, or part of a 
website, for compliance with the W3C Accessibility Guidelines  (WCAG 2.0)."

-  "Anyone" can be an individual or group of people.
- "Suitably qualified/experienced" has not been fully defined yet but 
doubtless includes understanding the guidelines and how they benefit 
disabled users and how they impact on webdesign.
- Consistency and reliable evaluation needs to be quantitative rather that 
qualitative wherever possible.

I feel it would be better if we try to cope with qualitative issues within 
the context of the requirements (when agreed) and the particular guideline 
under discussion. For example how to decide if the text alternative really 
does serve a similar purpose to the image, or even if a particular missing 
text alternative is sufficient to fail a whole site.

Kind regards
Received on Wednesday, 31 August 2011 22:24:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:40:18 UTC