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

RE: Finding complete processes

From: Vivienne CONWAY <v.conway@ecu.edu.au>
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2011 13:30:54 +0800
To: Wilco Fiers <w.fiers@accessibility.nl>, "Velleman, Eric" <evelleman@bartimeus.nl>, Martijn Houtepen <m.houtepen@accessibility.nl>, Alistair Garrison <alistair.j.garrison@gmail.com>, Eval TF <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>, KerstinProbiesch <k.probiesch@googlemail.com>
Message-ID: <8AFA77741B11DB47B24131F1E38227A9914FAED49C@XCHG-MS1.ads.ecu.edu.au>
Hi Wilko

You pose some interesting questions that I've been thinking about recently also.

For instance, you have a website that has links to YouTube videos demonstrating an interesting technique etc.  In the case I'm thinking of, the video clips are captioned, but don't have sign language.  They would therefore be AA but not AA compliant (as well as everything else about them was okay).  However, as you're only providing a link to them, but not embedding them, would this even apply?  If it does apply, then the problem is that you are linking directly to YouTube and would need to include that website (Yikes!) in your scope.

My thoughts (for what it's worth) is that as you're providing a link, but not embedding the video, you would not need to provide sign language.  However, I am as always, open to your suggestions.


Regards

Vivienne L. Conway, B.IT(Hons)
PhD Candidate & Sessional Lecturer, Edith Cowan University, Perth, W.A.
Director, Web Key IT Pty Ltd.
v.conway@ecu.edu.au
v.conway@webkeyit.com
Mob: 0415 383 673

This email is confidential and intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify me immediately by return email or telephone and destroy the original message.
________________________________________
From: Wilco Fiers [w.fiers@accessibility.nl]
Sent: Thursday, 1 December 2011 7:27 PM
To: Velleman, Eric; Martijn Houtepen; Alistair Garrison; Eval TF; KerstinProbiesch
Subject: RE: Finding complete processes

Hey Eric / all,

I think the question might actually answer it's self. Since the scope of the evaluation is a complete websites (we decided the methodology was to evaluate websites, not just parts of a website), if a process is part of the website, then therefore it should be included in the scope of the evaluation. I'm a big fan of using the strictest interpretation of the definition of process. Which it seems to me has two parts to it, first of is that there is a required action. Some very specific thing must occure, such as submiting a specific for, or activating a specific link or button (note that I'm not saying clicking it, because there are other ways to activate a link). Secondly, something is only a process if there is more then one required actions, to get a specific outcome. That is, something which can only be achieved by doing these required actions.

An interesting consequence of requiring complete processes to be accessible, is that a single web page, if it is part of a process, can be part of multiple websites. An online payment system such as Paypal for example. Pages on paypal.com can easilly be a used in processes originating from many different websites. Since the pages on which such processes start are clearly part of those websites (and not for instance Paypal), and WCAG 2 doesn't allow us to say these pages are conform, unless the rest of the process conforms as well, the Paypal pages must be included in the scope of the evaluation. Otherwise we can't make the claim that all web pages of a given website are conform WCAG 2.

Considering that, I think that an interesting question to answer is; are there other examples of web pages that can be part of multiple websites? I'd be in favor of making this the only exception, and for all other pages to have a many-to-one relationship with a website. That might take some work to define this properly, but it seems to make intuitive sence.

That was a bit longer then I intended, sorry, interesting stuff! I can't help it.

Wilco


________________________________________
Van: Velleman, Eric [evelleman@bartimeus.nl]
Verzonden: donderdag 1 december 2011 10:40
Aan: Martijn Houtepen; Alistair Garrison; Eval TF; KerstinProbiesch
Onderwerp: RE: Finding complete processes

Yes!
But is a game/complete process always part of the scope if it is on a website? Can we include or exclude parts?
Kindest regards,

Eric


________________________________________
Van: Martijn Houtepen [m.houtepen@accessibility.nl]
Verzonden: woensdag 30 november 2011 10:01
Aan: Alistair Garrison; Eval TF; Kerstin Probiesch
Onderwerp: RE: Finding complete processes

Hi All,

I agree. I think a predefined way of navigating, leading to a goal of some kind (a download for example) could be regarded a 'complete process' as well. In the case of point-and-click adventure games, the whole game will be a 'complete process'.

Best regards,

Martijn

-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: Alistair Garrison [mailto:alistair.j.garrison@gmail.com]
Verzonden: woensdag 30 november 2011 9:36
Aan: Eval TF; Kerstin Probiesch
Onderwerp: Re: Finding complete processes

Hi All,

Just adding to my previous mail.

The simplest way to find complete processes might be to search (scan) the site for forms (excluding those in every page i.e. search)... Saying that, search (and other 'on every page' forms) probably should be included once as a complete process.

Again, all the best

Alistair

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 Friday, 2 December 2011 05:34:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:52:12 GMT