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

Re: use-cases and scenarios for conformance evaluation

From: Michael S Elledge <elledge@msu.edu>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 14:46:55 -0400
Message-ID: <4EA8559F.2070603@msu.edu>
To: public-wai-evaltf@w3.org
As both a use case and a scenario, we (Usability/Accessibility Research 
and Consulting) use a four-step process to evaluate a website.

1. Review page using only keyboard.
2. Review page with JAWS.
3. Review page with WCAG 2.0 Level AA protocol.
4. Review page with automatic evaluator (generally WAVE).

Working with the client, we identify and then review ten pages (more for 
a very large or diverse website) that are representative of the 
different content or formatting that is present. We will also review 
processes (like check out on an e-commerce site) that are critical to 
using the site successfully.

Hope this helps...

Mike Elledge
Associate Director
Usability/Accessibility Research and Consulting
Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI 48824

On 10/25/2011 8:21 AM, Elle wrote:
> These documents are really helpful, everyone; thank you for sharing them.
> At my organization this year, we developed a five-step process for 
> evaluation and conformance to accessibility for new development projects:
> *During the initial development phase (agile methodology):*
>     * Story level automated testing by the developer as a Done When
>       criteria
>     * Story level manual testing by the systems IT tester
> *During User Acceptance Testing phase:*
>     * Comprehensive automated testing
>     * Strategic expert manual testing based on business analyst use cases
>     * Comprehensive expert disabled user testing
> I think it's important to note the different kinds of testing that's 
> needed (and feasible) at different stages of development. While this 
> might seem tedious or overzealous, it was the only way we could have 
> any confidence in producing accessible development. At a large 
> organization, so many hands touch each page that we felt that an 
> overlap was necessary.  We're still working to achieve full 
> compliance, but it's not due to a lack of identifying the issues. If I 
> can get the documentation approved for the wiki, I'll post them for 
> use if it seems it would help others.
> Thanks,
> Elle
Received on Wednesday, 26 October 2011 18:47:24 UTC

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