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

AW: Requirements draft target audience

From: Kerstin Probiesch <k.probiesch@googlemail.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2011 22:23:20 +0200
To: "'Eval TF'" <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
Message-ID: <4e69241e.4126df0a.0e0a.ffff819d@mx.google.com>
Hello all,

Following my comments - including Eric's suggestions and Richard's and
Denis' suggestions and comments.

> > > * Target Audience:
> > > A01: All organization evaluating one or more websites

Richard wrote:

> > Comment: The initial "All" is not required. Individuals can also
> evaluate- they don't need to be part of an organisation, so long as
> they have the knowledge and tools. It is accessibility evaluation as
> promoted by WCAG. So I would prefer
> > #A01 Organisations or individuals undertaking website accessibility
> evaluation for conformance with WCAG.

Denis wrote:

> I don't believe we need to indicate WCAG. It should be obvious in the
> context that this is oriented towards WCAG. I would suggest:
> 
> #A01 Organizations or individuals evaluating website accessibility
> conformance

Kerstin: I support Richards formulations, because the document may not
always appears in this context. And I find it important that there is a
clear statement that it will be an evaluation methodology for conformance
with WCAG. Just to make sure that it is clear for every one reading this
document even without having the context. I would suggest:

#A01 Organisations or individuals undertaking website accessibility
evaluation for conformance with WCAG 2.0.  

> > > A02: Web accessibility benchmarking organizations

Richard wrote:

> > Comment: Benchmarking requires verifiable and consistent results, so
> this is a good group to include to help keep us on track

Denis wrote:
 
> Absolutely. +1.

Kerstin: Agree 

> > > A03: Web content producers wishing to evaluate their content

Richard wrote:

> > Comment: This is particularly relevant to large organisations such as
> government websites where individual departments provide content
> updates etc. into templates using a company wide CMS. However these
> people are not normally HTML experts so we need to devise a system that
> gives them the information they need at an appropriate level whilst not
> boring the pants off accessibility experts!

Denis wrote:
 
> Agreed. This is probably a good time to suggest we breakdown the
> evaluation process into different smaller checklists, aimed at
> different contributors or web functions (designers, content providers,
> architects, developers, etc.). We're working on something like this for
> the Web Experience Toolkit (canadian govt) and it's proven to be quite
> effective with our clients as well: <http://alpha.gcwwwtemplates.tbs-
> sct.ircan.gc.ca/theme-clf2-nsi2/accessRespBreakdown-eng.html>.
> 
> Planning in our methodology that every contributor to a project is
> responsible for integrating accessibility in his or her own processes
> is a great way to ensure that accessibility is taken into consideration
> at every stage of the web development lifecycle. In my opinion, a
> methodology that suggested every content producers, whatever their
> contribution, had their own checklist of things to look out for would
> be very structuring and useful.

Kerstin: I agree with Richard and Denis and Yes: smaller checklist for
different web functions will be very helpful. 

> > > A04: Developers of Evaluation and Repair Tools

Richard wrote:

> > Comment: Tool developers might/should be interested, and find the
> procedures useful, but they should not be a target audience as their
> needs are different and to cover these is outside of our scope. I would
> prefer to drop this group.

Denis wrote:
 
> I believe so too. These are probably better served with ATAG, and
> unless I'm mistaken, the primary focus here is WCAG.

Kerstin: I agree to drop the Tool Developers

> > > A05: Policy makers and Web site owners wishing to evaluate websites

Richard wrote:

> > Comment: Policy makers and website owners may require the results of
> the procedure, but they are not (normally) technical people so I would
> prefer not to include them as a target audience. However website
> developers (those who actually build the sites) are technical and
> should be able to use the procedure. So I would prefer
> > #A05 Website developers who wish to evaluate their sites pre and post
> production

Denis wrote:

> I disagree. This counter proposal starts to look a lot like the A01.
> Both groups could be merged and I don't think we'd miss on anything.
> 
> I don't think we should drop the policy makers either. While it is true
> they are usually not technical enough to be able to conduct evaluation,
> they need to know how and why evaluation testing being done.
> 
> Also, having spent the past 4 years of my life with such people
> building our own localized standard, I can only wish we had documents
> like those to help them better understand what's at stake. As such, I
> think our methodology should address their concerns, one way or
> another, just like an executive summary would. Maybe by providing a
> high level overview of the methodology, so they better understand how
> things need to be done to be thorough and ensure compliance once the
> methodology is integrated in the organizations they make those policies
> for.
> 
> I am not sure however, that it's a good idea to put website owners and
> policy makers in the same group, which is why I suggested another at
> last week's teleconference:

Kerstin: I agree to drop the website owners but disagree to drop the policy
makers. 

Denis? Wrote:
 
> A01: Evaluation Organizations, Web Content Producers and Benchmarking
> Organizations
> A02: Web site owners wishing to evaluate websites
> A03: Developers of Evaluation and Repair Tools
> A04: Policy makers
> 
> Based on what Richard wrote, I guess I could consider throwing the
> Benchmarking organizations back in. ;p

Kerstin: I partially agree and I'm missing in A01 the Individuals. Because I
see the organizations and individuals more prominent I suggest:

#A01: Organizations or individuals undertaking website accessibility
evaluation for conformance with WCAG 2.0.
#A02: Web accessibility benchmarking organizations
#A03: Web Content Producers (designers, content providers, architects,
developers, etc.)
#A04: Policy makers

Denis wrote:
 
> I am interested to get feedback from you all on this counter proposal.

Kerstin: Done ;-)

> > > The person(s) using the Methodology should be knowledgeable of the
> Guidelines and people with disabilities.

Richard wrote:

> > Comment: Agreed.

Denis wrote:

> +1 as well.
> 
> This is an absolute necessity as far as I'm concerned.

Kerstin: I agree and suggest some additional points:

The person(s) using the Methodology should be knowledgeable of the
Guidelines, people with disabilities and should have a basic knowledge about
Assistive Technologies and Techniques.

Regards

Kerstin


>> Richard
 
> --
> Denis Boudreau, président
> Coopérative AccessibilitéWeb
> 
> 1751 rue Richardson, bureau 6111
> Montréal (Qc), Canada H3K 1G6
> Téléphone : +1 877.315.5550
> Courriel : dboudreau@accessibiliteweb.com
> Web : www.accessibiliteweb.com

-------------------------------------
Kerstin Probiesch - Freie Beraterin
Barrierefreiheit, Social Media, Webkompetenz
Kantstraße 10/19 | 35039 Marburg
Tel.: 06421 167002
E-Mail: k.probiesch@googlemail.com
Web: http://www.barrierefreie-informationskultur.de
XING: http://www.xing.com/profile/Kerstin_Probiesch
Twitter: http://twitter.com/kprobiesch
------------------------------------
Received on Thursday, 8 September 2011 20:23:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:52:11 GMT