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

Re: An Evaluation Question for all you experts

From: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2011 09:20:17 +0100
Message-ID: <4EBA37C1.2010109@w3.org>
To: Vivienne CONWAY <v.conway@ecu.edu.au>
CC: Eval TF <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
Hi Vivienne,

I agree that the current How To Meet is rather cumbersome, especially 
for evaluators - we need to determine the requirements for evaluators.

Ideally, the How To Meet would be a stand-alone resource that can be 
used for evaluating individual web pages by different audiences; for 
example also by non-expert evaluators. The Methodology would then use 
this resource as a heart-piece for evaluating entire websites.

I think I should draw up a diagram to better explain this.

Best,
   Shadi


On 9.11.2011 04:56, Vivienne CONWAY wrote:
> Hi again Shadi
>
> I just finished going through your response links. I am of the opinion that we need something more for evaluators, but perhaps our document will help with that.
>
> The quick reference is useful, but can be cumbersome.  For instance, if you want to check such an issue, you go first to the How to Meet : http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/quickref/Overview.php and have to go through the points until you find one that you think most closely describes your issue, then you have to look at the Sufficient Techniques, Advisory Techniques and Failures.  Sometimes, even then, an evaluator can be unsure whether such an item would pass as it is not always described exactly there.  This present issue on keyboard traps is such a point.
>
> I put an item on the WCAG working group mailing list asking if a search feature was being contemplated.  The answer was, not at this time.  It would be great to be able to type in something in a search feature e.g. 'keyboard trap' and all of the guidelines, sufficient techniques etc. were to be listed.  Wouldn't it make the documents much easier to use?  The easier they are to use, the more people will use them - IMHO:)
>
> Also, regarding one of your other comments.  I really think that new evaluators need to be told that a particular piece of code can violate a number of guidelines, just as a piece of code can cause numerous html validation errors.  While it makes a score look rather scary, it can often be fixed quite quickly when that one error has had a cascading error effect.
>
> I think a "How to evaluate to WCAG 2.0"  - perhaps including my ideal search feature described above, would be really useful and would go well with our evaluation methodology and may also cover some of the points Detlev made earlier regarding whether we looked at how to evaluate individual criteria in our methodology.
>
>
> 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: Tuesday, 8 November 2011 6:00 PM
> To: Vivienne CONWAY
> Cc: Eval TF
> Subject: Re: An Evaluation Question for all you experts
>
> Hi Vivienne,
>
> I have not actually looked at the website but from your description it
> sounds to me that other Success Criteria than SC 2.1.2 may be relevant:
>    - SC 1.1.1 for the text alternatives on the buttons
>    - SC 2.4.4 and SC 2.4.9 for the link text (purpose)
>    - SC 3.2.2 for changing the context without warning
>
> A discussion of this is probably better on the WAI Interest Group (IG)
> mailing list, which I hope everyone in this list is tracking too:
>    -<http://www.w3.org/WAI/IG/>
>
> Having said that, I guess some key take aways for this group include:
>    - evaluators need better guidance on the Techniques level
>    - one issue often maps to more than one Success Criterion
>
> We need to be aware of that, in particular the second point which will
> impact how we aggregate issues and score the websites. Is it a bigger
> issue because it maps to more than one criterion and thus probably
> impacts more people, or is that an artifact of how WCAG is structured?
>
> Some of this may be partially answered through the RDWG Symposium:
>    -<http://www.w3.org/WAI/RD/2011/metrics/>
>
> The first point may indicate that a "How to Evaluate WCAG 2.0" rather
> than "How to Meet WCAG 2.0" quick reference guide is needed:
>    -<http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/quickref/>
>
> We will need a lot more discussion about how this guide is to look like
> but it is one of the planned activities:
>    -<http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/2011/eval/#supporting>
>
> Are there other particular issues that you wanted to raise?
>
> Sidenote: this seems related to a previous thread from Detlev Fischer:
>    -<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-evaltf/2011Sep/0101>
>
> Best,
>     Shadi
>
>
> On 8.11.2011 03:54, Vivienne CONWAY wrote:
>> Hi all
>>
>> I have been having an interesting discussion with a fellow evaluator on what consitutes a failure of 2.1.2. (Keyboard Trap). http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/keyboard-operation-trapping.html#keybrd-interfacedef
>>
>> If you have time, please have a look at the following website:
>> http://jobsearch.gov.au/default.aspx
>>
>> If you navigate via the keyboard to the large box on the right hand side with the eight numbers (which have such lovely link names as 1-link, 2-link), you will see that you can click on the box and it takes you - with no warning, - to a new window.  The person using a screen reader would not know they have entered a new window unless they hear and notice the new URL, but that's not what I'm wondering about.  The only way I can see to get out is to exit the window via the Alt-F, exit option to close the window, at which time you go back to the starting point.  My question is, does this constitute a keyboard trap?  For example, the user doesn't know they are in a new window, so would not know to exit in the above way.
>>
>> This is a typical question someone evaluating a website would come across, so I thought you might find it useful to discuss it and give me your learned opinions.
>>
>> Happy analyzing
>>
>> Vivienne
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 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, 4 November 2011 4:27 AM
>> To: Eval TF
>> Subject: Minutes for Teleconference on 3 November 2011
>>
>> Eval TF,
>>
>> Please find the minutes for the teleconference on 3 November 2011:
>>     -<http://www.w3.org/2011/11/03-eval-minutes.html>
>>
>> Next meeting: Thursday 10 November 2011
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>      Shadi
>>
>> --
>> 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)
>
> 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)
Received on Wednesday, 9 November 2011 08:20:45 GMT

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