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

Re: WCAG-Evaluation Methodology first online version

From: Detlev Fischer <fischer@dias.de>
Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2011 11:17:03 +0100
Message-ID: <4EB26A1F.6040404@dias.de>
To: public-wai-evaltf@w3.org
Hi Eric, hi all,

thanke for the commented Table of Contents.

Here are my comments:


*  The text says: "It extends the existing WAI resource
    Conformance Evaluation of Websites for Accessibility."
    Since this doc is based on WCAG 1.0, an update / replacement
    rather than an extension is needed?
*  The "Preliminary Review of Web Sites for Accessibility"
    document seems quite close to  "Conformance Evaluation of
    Websites for Accessibility". Should the new methodology
    replace both, or will they remain in updated from? This
    could cause some confusion for users checking WAI pages
    for applicable evaluation guidance.
*  There is no reference to the how-to-meet-WCAG 2.0 quickref
    document so far.

6. Expertise for evaluating accessibility:

*  Can expertise specific to testing / validation processes be
*  There is currently no info on how testers can *become* experts.
    For us as organisation conducting tests also with 3rd party
    testers, training and retaining a shared understanding is an
    important issue.
*  The aim might be that the methodology also works as a training
    resource (a launch pad to more detailed information on the
    issues, the techniques, etc). This would allow enable people
    with basic technical knowledge (HTML/CSS) to become aware of
    a11y issues and evaluate content against WCAG (or other sets
    of a11y requirements)
*  It is unclear yet to what extent actionable information in
    the procedure might stand in for evaluator expertise and build
    up expertise in less experienced evaluators

9. Evaluation

*  As noted before, this (after defining the page sample) seems
    to be the meat of the methodology.
*  The current subheadings seem to address aspects of procedure
    but they not walk linearly through the WACG success criteria.
*  Subheading 9.3 Procedure for evaluation could be promoted and
    might then also include page sampling (this is part of the
    overall procedure when faced with a site to be tested).
*  The procedure should include 9.4 Barrier recognition as part
    of each SC test or checkpoint (this is quite different across
    checkpoints, I don’t think it makes sense to treat it on an
    overall level).

In my view, the following general structure of the methodology would 
have the advantage of clearly separating the context (explanations, 
rational, preconditions) in part A, and the hands-on testing procedure 
in part B. Note it is just a draft to show the concept of separation.

Methodology part A: Context

A1. Introduction
A2. Scope
A3. Target audience
A4. References
A5. Definitions and Terminology, Glossary
A6. Required expertise

Methodology part B: testing procedure

B1. Suitability of website for testing
B2. Forking of tests depending on UA context?
B3. Page sampling
     B3.1 Setting one or multiple scopes and levels of conformance
     B3.2 Defining complete processes to be included in scope(s)
B4. Evaluation procedure (based on a fleshed out template that
     other users may incorporate in testing tools with comment fields,
     B4.1 Guideline 1.1 Text Alternatives (SC dependent on
          conformance level)
     B4.2 Guideline 1.2 Time-based Media (applicable SC as
     B4.12  Guideline 4.1 Compatible (applicable SC as subheadings)
B5. Creating conformance claim of scope(s) tested (incl.
     listing of technologies)
B6. Reporting, incl. any test score and comments

What do you think?


> Dear all,
> Please find the first version of the Evaluation Methodology at:
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20111102
> <http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20111102>Please note that the time in UTC in the mail with the agenda should be 15:00 to 16:00 UTC. The other times are correct. Hope to speak to you all tomorrow.
> Kindest regards,
> Eric

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 Thursday, 3 November 2011 10:24:16 UTC

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