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

Re: AW: Additional Point/Question: problem centered / page centered evaluation

From: <kvotis@iti.gr>
Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2011 09:36:36 +0300
Message-ID: <6218a1329dbaa9e5bdebe42c4cc25ad2.squirrel@mail.iti.gr>
To: "RichardWarren" <richard.warren@userite.com>
Cc: "Kerstin Probiesch" <k.probiesch@googlemail.com>, "'Eval TF'" <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>, "'Vivienne CONWAY'" <v.conway@ecu.edu.au>
Hi to all

i aggree with Richard and others regarding the problem-centred approach.
We have followed the same approach in the FP7 ACCESSIBLE project
assessment tools where the evaluation could be also performed through the
usage of different categories of personas, functional limitations, etc.



Dr. Konstantinos Votis
Computer Engineer & Informatics,PhD, Msc, MBA
Research Associate
Informatics and Telematics Institute
Centre for Research and Technology Hellas
6th Klm. Charilaou - Thermi Road
P.O. BOX 60361 GR - 570 01
Thessaloniki &#8211; Greece
Tel.: +30-2311-257722
Fax : +30-2310-474128
E-mail : kvotis@iti.gr

> Hi,
> I agree with Vivienne and Kerstin that a problem-centred approach is best.
> Using problems means that you look at the whole website (if appropriate)
> and
> are able to identify particular groups that are disadvantaged by the
> issues
> found. This is much more useful if you want to compare sites. Explaining
> that 20% of pages are not accessible has less impact than saying that a
> particular group (keyboard users,  blind users etc.) cannot use the site.
> You can still apply the problem-centred approach to single pages,
> templates
> or components.
> Richard
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kerstin Probiesch
> Sent: Saturday, September 03, 2011 12:08 PM
> To: 'Eval TF'
> Cc: 'Vivienne CONWAY'
> Subject: AW: Additional Point/Question: problem centered / page centered
> evaluation
> Hi Vivienne, hi TF,
>> The question of problem-centered or page-centered approach is going to
>> be tricky.
> Yes. It is.
>> Personally I favour the problem-centered approach as I am
>> seldom assessing a single page.  Violations in my opinion, usually are
>> duplicated across pages.  For example if there is a lack of keyboard
>> access on a single page, that is likely to occur on most if not all
>> pages.  Some websites are so huge, that a page-centered approach is
>> simply not feasible.
> Same opinion. When following a page-centered approach you have to document
> the same problem on every page again and again. Keyboard access is a good
> example for that, another one is SC 3.1.1. The more single pages you have,
> the more the page-centered approach might be imo insufficient. Not only
> for
> the accessibility statement/report/result but also for the steps a website
> owner has to do or order to do. An example: you have a huge website with
> hundreds or more single pages and - let me say - 10 or more categories. In
> this case an evaluation guided by a problem-centered approach will find
> more
> violations and according to my experiences you can e.g. find out if
> all/not
> all/just some/or one online editor/s know how to organize the content (Hx,
> lists,...) or how to deal with SC 1.1.1. In addition you can give specific
> instructions.
> Another problem of the page-centered approach is imo the following: You
> _have_ to define a set of "typical" pages to test on every website as part
> of the methodology. A website owner would complain if you test different
> types. What happens in following situation: on one homepage (main page)
> you
> have a video which violates the SC, on another website you also have a
> video
> which violates the SC but the video is not on the main page and probably
> also not on one of the defined set of pages according to the followed
> page-centered approach? One can argue: in this case we are testing also
> the
> video. But, what about 1.3.3, 1.4.1 and 1.3.1 and how to deal with
> processes? Important questions I think are
> - are accessible statements which are reliable and valid based upon X
> (3,4,5,10?) pages possible and how many pages one have to test? This
> corresponds with "R04: Replicability: different Web accessibility
> evaluators
> who perform the same tests on the same site should get the same results
> within a given tolerance."
> - how avoid human errors during the process of page selection before
> starting a particular test and during the test itself?
> Nevertheless and even if I prefer a problem-centered approach, a
> page-centered one is probably the only acceptible and pragmatical method
> when you have to test a great amount of websites in a comparative study -
> but here again I think we will have limitations with consequences for the
> accessibility statement(s).
> I suggest that we also discuss, if we as TF should give redommendations/
> suggestions for different scenarios:
> - testing one single page (test should include every SC on this single
> page)?!
> - testing a website (walkthrough for every single SC _and_ every single
> step
> of a process, if existing)?!
> - comparative studies (testing every SC on a defined set of "typical"
> pages)
> ?!
> - (...)?!
> And we also have to consider the conformity levels.
> I'm thinking about if it might be helpful to collect possible scenarios to
> see which approach might be the best for a given scenario resp. discuss if
> we recommend one approach for all scenarios?
> Last not least: Also the problem-centered approach might lead to problems.
> In the page-centered approach a tester has finished the test when checked
> all SCs for the collected single pages. In a problem-centered approach one
> have to find other criterias otherwise the tester is "lost in violations"
> depending on the quality of the website.
>> On the other hand, a developer who is adding a single page and wanting
>> to know if it meets accessibility criteria would be testing only that
>> page.  Thoughts?
> This is an interesting question. It can be that the added single page
> belongs to an already tested website or not. If the added single belongs
> to
> an already tested site, maybe the test is long ago. I think in case of an
> added single page a test should include all SCs which indicates the
> problem-centered approach.
> I hope my points are clear. Sadly, I'm not very familiar in writing
> English
> :-( practice will do, hopefully.
> Regards
> Kerstin
>> Regards
>> Vivienne L. Conway
>> ________________________________________
>> From: public-wai-evaltf-request@w3.org [public-wai-evaltf-
>> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Shadi Abou-Zahra [shadi@w3.org]
>> Sent: Tuesday, 30 August 2011 5:05 PM
>> To: Eval TF
>> Subject: Fwd: Additional Point/Question: problem centered / page
>> centered  evaluation
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: Additional Point/Question: problem centered / page centered
>> evaluation
>> Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 08:21:34 +0000
>> From: Kerstin Probiesch <mail@barrierefreie-informationskultur.de>
>> To: <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
>> Dear Eval TF,
>> I want to add the following question: should we recommend a problem
>> centered
>> or a page centered approach? In my opinion this question is not only
>> essential for further discussions about single questions and topics
>> (true/false, rankings, involve people with disabilities) but essential
>> for
>> the whole methodology.
>> Regs
>> Kerstin
>> -------------------------------------
>> Kerstin Probiesch - Freie Beraterin
>> Barrierefreiheit, Social Media, Webkompetenz
>> Kantstra?e 10/19 | 35039 Marburg
>> Tel.: 06421 167002
>> E-Mail: mail@barrierefreie-informationskultur.de
>> Web: http://www.barrierefreie-informationskultur.de
>> XING: http://www.xing.com/profile/Kerstin_Probiesch
>> Twitter: http://twitter.com/kprobiesch
>> ------------------------------------
>> 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, 5 September 2011 06:37:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:40:18 UTC