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

Re: Finding complete processes

From: RichardWarren <richard.warren@userite.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2011 12:35:04 -0000
Message-ID: <AADF8000FF384AF29D4CD04D43BDD759@DaddyPC>
To: "Velleman, Eric" <evelleman@bartimeus.nl>, "Eval TF" <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>

Sorry if I appear pedantic, but if the external website is part of the 
process then it must be included. The site owner has decided that s/he wants 
to use the external service as part of the process, so if s/he has chosen a 
non-compliant provider that is the owner's responsibility and they are 
offering a non-compliant service to the consumer.

Otherwise it is like a restaurant owner saying that he is not responsible 
for the awful wine he serves because it is supplied by the local 

So - Eric, if a website owner works their !%#$ off to make a site compliant 
they need to spend a bit of time selecting compliant sub-contractors - OR 
devising an alternative method of completion that does not require the use 
of the non-compliant element. A few years ago we had a client who had this 
problem and overcame it with a contact form for screen-reader users so that 
the payment could be completed manually over the phone.


-----Original Message----- 
From: Velleman, Eric
Sent: Friday, December 02, 2011 11:01 AM
To: Eval TF
Subject: RE: Finding complete processes

Hi Alistair,

Yes, sounds good. This would mean that the website cannot claim conformance 
to any level. But can explain the partial conformance on a seperate page? 
Partial conformance would then not just be a page thing, but a website 
thing. And probably easy to describe and explain. Any thoughts from others?

On the other hand, this approach might not be stimulating for organisations 
working their !%#$ off to make their website accessible and then failing 
because of one external page..


Van: Vivienne CONWAY [v.conway@ecu.edu.au]
Verzonden: vrijdag 2 december 2011 10:02
Aan: Alistair Garrison; Shadi Abou-Zahra; Eval TF
Onderwerp: RE: Finding complete processes

Hi Alistair
I don't think I could fault that approach.  What you are saying is complete 
and truthful.  You aren't claiming compliance for anything that you can't 
vouch for.


Vivienne L. Conway, B.IT(Hons)
PhD Candidate & Sessional Lecturer, Edith Cowan University, Perth, W.A.
Director, Web Key IT Pty Ltd.
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 

From: Alistair Garrison [alistair.j.garrison@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, 2 December 2011 5:25 PM
To: Shadi Abou-Zahra; Eval TF
Subject: Re: Finding complete processes

Hi Shadi, all,

Say I am owner of examplesite.com<http://examplesite.com> - which has two 
processes which end in third party sites (let's say a credit card process 
and a booking form - and, I know that one of the third parties has made a 
conformance claim for the credit card process - but none is made for the 
booking form).

In order to form my conformance claim I could use sitemap indexes / the 
sitemap protocol to define the pages I wish to make a conformance claim for. 
Then I define the complete processes for which I can make a conformance 
claim i.e. the credit card process - listing all pages including the third 
party page.   Then I include a 'Statement of Partial Conformance' (as 
defined in 
http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-WCAG20-20081211/#conformance-partial) about 
the complete processes (booking process) which end in third party content 
for which no third party conformance claim was available e.g. "The booking 
process [defined in urls] does not conform, but would conform to WCAG 2.0 at 
level X if the following parts [urls] from uncontrolled sources were 

A conformance claim made in this way would, to my mind, provide a clear 
scope for an evaluation.  You would not, however, be able to just say the 
"whole site" conforms - see my previous mail.

Thoughts / comments?

All the best

Alistair Garrison

On 2 Dec 2011, at 07:45, Shadi Abou-Zahra wrote:

Hi Alistair,

Conceptually I agree with you but we need to avoid unintentional loopholes. 
I think the credit card payment at the end of the process should be part of 
the evaluation. I don't think requiring that such "essential resources" are 
part of the evaluation contradicts the conformance claim declarations 
recommended in WCAG. It is a way of saying how these conformance claims 
should be completed.

I guess the summary is that, as usual, we need to find the correct balance 
between everything and nothing in defining the scope.


On 1.12.2011 21:23, Alistair Garrison wrote:
Dear all,

I strongly believe that the scope of the evaluation should be the wished for 
WCAG 2.0 defined conformance claim (detailing website sections, pages, 
processes, etc...) being made by the website owner / developer (based on 
http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/conformance), rather than what we 
are finding difficult to define, but easy to term, "the whole website".

Top reasons for this I believe are:

1) It supports, even encourages, detailed conformance claims to be made by 
the people responsible for the website.  If you could just say 
"www.mysite.com<http://www.mysite.com> conforms" what would the point of 
http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/conformance be...
2) It tells the public exactly what conforms in the website - a bit more 
like the VPAT.  If the conformance claim state that a website's shopping 
process (defined by urls) conforms to x and y,  a user will be certain that 
it will be accessible to them.
3) It makes evaluation more precise, and more efficient, as we know exactly 
what needs to be assessed (i.e. what is defined in the conformance claim) - 
and means that we would only ever need to assess the new parts of a 
conformance claim on an on-going basis; and
4) If the website contains any complete processes which back-ends into third 
party pages - we would not be allowed to say "the whole website" conforms in 
any case (as mentioned in my previous mail).  That could render the 
evaluation methodology useless to an awful number of websites, as "their 
whole website" could never be said to conform - so why bother to use the 
evaluation methodology...

As time goes on I can think of more and more good reasons for choosing WCAG 
2.0 defined conformance claims, over "the whole website",  as the scope of 
the evaluation.  However, it is your thoughts / comments on the above that I 
am most interested in...

Very best regards

Alistair Garrison

On 1 Dec 2011, at 11:27, Wilco Fiers wrote:

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<http://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.


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

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,


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,


-----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


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.

Received on Friday, 2 December 2011 12:35:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:40:19 UTC