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

Re: Finding complete processes

From: Detlev Fischer <fischer@dias.de>
Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2011 17:41:00 +0100
Message-ID: <20111203174100.16290rxz6ggpvaqk@webmail.dias.de>
To: public-wai-evaltf@w3.org
Hi,

 From a practical point of view, even if external resources are not  
under the control of the site owner, they have been chosen to be  
included and are therefore an integral part of the process. They  
cannot be ignored, otherwise the process would not be complete. Either  
the entire process is excluded or it must be evaluated in its entirety.

In many cases, site owners have a choice regarding the external  
resources they use. Take, for example, a shop system integrated into a  
site. Some systems will be more accessible than others. Some have  
templates that can be customised to make them more accessible. So a  
result of an evaluation might be that a sote owner has to change to a  
more accessible external service or customise it, if possible.

In general, I agree with Alistair that a specific identification of  
scope is useful. A site may have several sections, some that conform  
(even to different levels), others that do not (yet) conform. As long  
as the claim makes this explicit I think it is useful to differentiate  
even within one website. The WCAG "Required Components of a  
Conformance Claim" are useful for that.

Regards,
Detlev


So a process relying on a Quoting Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>:

> Yes, there is a certain amount of subjectivity but I'm not sure if  
> we can eradicate that completely. I guess the best way is to narrow  
> down the decision space like WCAG did for non-text alternatives.
>
> Happy to hear other suggestions.
>
> Best,
>   Shadi
>
>
> On 2.12.2011 07:48, Vivienne CONWAY wrote:
>> Thanks Shadi
>>
>> In this particular instance, the YouTube links are merely for  
>> interest or additional information and are not an essential service.
>>
>> However, aren't we going to get into difficulties when assessing a  
>> website if we then have to determine how 'essential' a component of  
>> a website is?  We are then relying on the evaluator to make that  
>> determination - which if you're evaluating a website for a client  
>> may not be very easy.  You'd need to go to the website owner and  
>> probably to a group of customers to determine how essential this  
>> link was.Also, if we are making our determination according to how  
>> essential a component is, it's going to get very subjective.   
>> Thoughts?
>>
>>
>> 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: Shadi Abou-Zahra [shadi@w3.org]
>> Sent: Friday, 2 December 2011 3:36 PM
>> To: public-wai-evaltf@w3.org
>> Subject: Re: Finding complete processes
>>
>> I think the question is how essential these external resources are to
>> complete a task/process, rather than how they are referenced.
>>
>> A good example is providing directions using only an external mapping
>> service. IMO this would be essential to include in the evaluation.
>>
>> In this case it may also not matter how often this service is used by
>> other websites as long as it is an essential part of the website.
>>
>> Regards,
>>    Shadi
>>
>>
>> On 2.12.2011 06:30, Vivienne CONWAY wrote:
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> 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
>>
>>
>
> -- 
> 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)
>
>



--
---------------------------------------------------------------
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 Saturday, 3 December 2011 16:41:25 GMT

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