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

Requirements draft

From: RichardWarren <richard.warren@userite.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 00:11:32 +0100
Message-ID: <8E59C5B3906347F6AB100FC8C2156468@DaddyPC>
To: "Velleman, Eric" <evelleman@bartimeus.nl>, <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
Hi,
Following on from discussing Eric’s target audience perhaps we should start 
on his suggested Requirements. I attach my comments  below for starters.

* Requirements:
R01: Technical conformance to existing Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) 
Recommendations and Techniques documents.
Comment (RW) :  I do not think we need the word technical. We should stick 
with WCAG as agreed when we discussed *A01.  The recommendations and 
techniques are not relevant here as our priority is the Guidelines. It is 
possible for someone to comply with a particular guideline without using any 
of the recommended techniques. What we are after is methodology.  I 
therefore suggest a suitable alternative as follows:

*R01 Define methods for evaluating compliance with the accessibility 
guidelines (WCAG)


R02: Tool and browser independent
Comment (RW) : The principle is good but sometimes it may be necessary  to 
use a particular tool such as a text-only browser. So I would prefer :

*R02: Where possible the evaluation process should be tool and browser 
independent.


R03: Unique interpretation
Comment (RW) : I think this means that it should be unambiguous, that means 
it  is not open to different interpretations. I am pretty sure that the W3C 
has a standard clause it uses to cover this point when building standards 
etc. Hopefully Shadi can find it <Grin> . This also implies use of standard 
terminology which we should be looking at as soon as possible so that terms 
like “atomic testing” do not creep into our procedures without clear /agreed 
definitions.


R04: Replicability: different Web accessibility evaluators who perform the 
same tests on the same site should get the same results within a given 
tolerance.
Comment (RW) : The first part is good, but I am not happy with introducing 
“tolerance” at this stage. I think we should be clear that we are after 
consistent, replicable tests. I think we should add separate requirement 
later for such things as “partial compliance” and “tolerance. See R14 below.

*R04: Replicability: different Web accessibility evaluators who perform the 
same tests on the same site should get the same results.


R05: Translatable
Comment (RW) : As in translatable into different languages – Yes - agree


R06: The methodology points to the existing tests in the techniques 
documents and does not reproduce them.
Comment (RW) : yes – but I would like it a bit clearer that it is WCAG 
techniques.  I would also like the option to introduce a new technique if it 
becomes available. So I suggest

*R06 Where possible the methodology should point to existing tests and 
techniques in the WCAG documentation.


R07: Support for both manual and automated evaluation.
Comment (RW) :  Not all Guidelines can be tested automatically and it is not 
viable to test some others manually. This needs to be clearer that the most 
appropriate methods will be used, whether manual or automatic. Where both 
options are available they must deliver the same result.

*R07:  Use the most appropriate manual or automatic evaluation. Where either 
could be used then both must deliver the same result.


R08: Users include (see target audience)
Comment (RW) : Whilst user testing is essential  for confirming 
accessibility it is not needed/essential for checking compliance with WCAG. 
If we feel that user testing is needed then we must specify what users, what 
skill level, what tasks etc..so that evaluators all use the same type of 
user and get the same type of result. I would prefer not to include users 
here as a requirement.


R09: Support for different contexts (i.e. self-assessment, third-party 
evaluation of small or larger websites).
Comment (RW) :  Agreed.


R10: Includes recommendations for sampling web pages and for expressing the 
scope of a conformance claim
Comment (RW) : I agree. This is probably going to be the most difficult 
issue, but it is essential if our methodology is going to be useable in the 
real world as illustrated by discussions already taking place. Should it 
include tolerance metrics (R14)?


R11: Describes critical path analyses,
Comment (RW) :  I assume this is the CPA of the evaluation process (ie 
define website, test this, test that, write report etc.). In which case 
agreed


R12: Covers computer assisted content selection and manual content selection
Comment (RW) : I do not know what this means – can Eric explain ?


R13: Includes integration and aggregation of the evaluation results and 
related conformance statements.
Comment (RW) : I think this means “write a nice report” in which case I 
agree.


R14: Includes tolerance metrics.
Comment (RW) : Agreed – but maybe combine with R10


R15: The Methodology includes recommendations for harmonized 
(machine-readable) reporting.
Comment (RW) : I am not sure that methodologies recommend things. Do you 
mean

*R15: Reports must be machine readable.


Best wishes
Richard (RW)

-----Original Message----- 
From: Velleman, Eric
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 12:56 PM
To: public-wai-evaltf@w3.org
Subject: Appendix to the agenda: Requirements draft

Dear Eval TF,

In our call, we will discuss further on the questions that are on the list. 
Please also react online. As a result of our last call, below you find a 
first draft of the possible requirements for the methodology. We will 
discuss this further tomorrow in our call:

First Draft Section on Requirements

* Objectives:
The main objective is an internationally harmonized methodology for 
evaluating the conformance of websites to WCAG 2.0. This methodology will 
support different contexts, such as for self-assessment or third-party 
evaluation of small or larger websites.
It intends to cover recommendations for sampling web pages and for 
expressing the scope of a conformance claim, critical path analyses, 
computer assisted content selection, manual content selection, the 
evaluation of web pages, integration and aggregation of the evaluation 
results and conformance statements. The methodology will also address 
tolerance metrics.
The Methodology also includes recommendations for harmonized 
(machine-readable) reporting.

This work is part of other related W3C/WAI activities around evaluation and 
testing.
More on the EvalTF page.

* Target Audience:
A01: All organization evaluating one or more websites
A02: Web accessibility benchmarking organizations
A03: Web content producers wishing to evaluate their content
A04: Developers of Evaluation and Repair Tools
A05: Policy makers and Web site owners wishing to evaluate websites

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

* Requirements:
R01: Technical conformance to existing Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) 
Recommendations and Techniques documents.
R02: Tool and browser independent
R03: Unique interpretation
R04: Replicability: different Web accessibility evaluators who perform the 
same tests on the same site should get the same results within a given 
tolerance.
R05: Translatable
R06: The methodology points to the existing tests in the techniques 
documents and does not reproduce them.
R07: Support for both manual and automated evaluation.
R08: Users include (see target audience)
R09: Support for different contexts (i.e. self-assessment, third-party 
evaluation of small or larger websites).
R10: Includes recommendations for sampling web pages and for expressing the 
scope of a conformance claim
R11: Describes critical path analyses,
R12: Covers computer assisted content selection and manual content selection
R13: Includes integration and aggregation of the evaluation results and 
related conformance statements.
R14: Includes tolerance metrics.
R15: The Methodology includes recommendations for harmonized 
(machine-readable) reporting.

The methodology describes the expected level of expertise for persons 
carrying out the evaluation and the possibility to conduct evaluations in 
teams using roles. There is also a description of the necessity to involve 
people with disabilities.
Received on Sunday, 11 September 2011 23:12:04 GMT

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