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

RE: table of contents Evaluation Methodology

From: Vivienne CONWAY <v.conway@ecu.edu.au>
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 12:07:52 +0800
To: "Velleman, Eric" <evelleman@bartimeus.nl>, "public-wai-evaltf@w3.org" <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
Message-ID: <8AFA77741B11DB47B24131F1E38227A98CAAEDA3E3@XCHG-MS1.ads.ecu.edu.au>
HI all

Under the Table of Contents #6.  Do we want to add something about where/how people are recruited and/or trained? We've got 'expertise for evaluation accessibility', but that seems a little subjective to me.  What are the qualities an expert evaluator should possess - e.g. basic knowledge of html/css, experience, etc.  Giorgio Brajnik's paper "the expertise effect on web accessibility evaluation methods" deals with this issue.  He also deals with the fact that 3 experts could find all problems, which equated to 14 nonexperts.  Bears thinking about in our discussions on evaluator qualifications as well as how the evaluations are carried out. In other words, what makes an 'expert'.  I've found this paper incredibly helpful.


Regards

Vivienne L. Conway
________________________________________
From: public-wai-evaltf-request@w3.org [public-wai-evaltf-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Velleman, Eric [evelleman@bartimeus.nl]
Sent: Saturday, 15 October 2011 5:54 AM
To: public-wai-evaltf@w3.org
Subject: table of contents Evaluation Methodology

Dear all,

Below a very rough first version of the possible table of contents. Please add sections if you miss any and at the same time describe what you think should be in the sections.

Table of contents proposal

- Abstract
- Status of this document
- Table of Contents

1. Introduction
General introduction to the document as a sort of executive summary.
2. Scope of this document
This section describes the scope of this document. It is required for
standards documents and does not describe the methodology
3. Target audience
Description of the target audience of the Methodology. We did some
work for this in the requirements document
4. References
5. Definitions/Terminology
Terminology that is important for the understanding of the Methodology.
General words and terms could be placed in the glossary at the end of
the document. We already did some work in the requirements
document like for website etc..
6. Expertise for evaluating accessibility
What expertise should people have who use this Methodology
6.1 Involving People with Disabilities in the process
As discussed in the requirements discussion we wanted to address in
the Methodology that involvement of users with disabilities is important.
There is text about this in the eval suite on the WAI pages.
7. Procedure to express the Scope of the evaluation (based on:)
How can an evaluator express the scope of a website. What is in and
what can be left out? Below are some possible sections that cover
things that look necessary to describe to pinpoint the exact scope of
what is in and what can be left outside the scope of a website:
7.1 Technologies used on the webpages
7.2 Base URI of the evaluation
7.3 Perception and function
7.4 Complete processes
7.5 Webpages behind authorization
7.6 Dividing the scope into multiple evaluations
Imagine a website is large and the would like to divide the evaluation
over different parts for which different people are responsible. If all
parts are in the scope of the website, then the scope could be divided
into multiple parts that all have to be evaluated.
8. Sampling of pages
An evaluator can manually evaluate all pages, but on website with
9M pages that is a lot of work. How to select a sample of a website
is described in this section. How many pages and how do you choose
them?
8.1 Sample selection (random and targeted sampling)
8.2 Size of evaluation samples (related to barriers)
9. Evaluation
This is the section describing step by step how to do the evaluation.
The evaluation is depending on many factors, like technologies used,
technologies evaluated, Accessibility supported etc. Part of the story
is the barrier that are encountered during evaluation. When are they
a real problem? Is it possible to have an error margin and how do
we describe that?
9.1 Manual and machine evaluation
9.2 Technologies
9.3 Procedure for evaluation
9.4 Barrier recognition
9.5 Error margin
10. Conformity
This section is largely from WCAG 2.0 with additional information.
10.1 Conformity requirements
10.2 Accessibility supported
10.3 Partial conformance
10.4 Conformance claims
10.5 Score function (barrier change)
11. Reporting
How to write a report from the evaluation that is human readable
and one that is machine readable. And what should be in the
report. Templates are included in the appendices.
11.1 Text based report
11.2 Machine readable report using EARL
12. Limitations and underlying assumptions
13. Acknowledgements
14. Glossary
15. References
16. Appendix: Template for manual evaluation report
17. Appendix: Template for EARL report

Kindest regards and happy discussing :)

Eric

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 Monday, 17 October 2011 04:13:33 GMT

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