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

Re: Requirements - R11: Critical path analyses

From: Katie Haritos-Shea <ryladog@earthlink.net>
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 20:07:57 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <21348712.1316131677789.JavaMail.root@wamui-hunyo.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
To: "Velleman,Eric" <evelleman@bartimeus.nl>, "public-wai-evaltf@w3.org" <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>

I am going to suggest that the 'R11: Critical path analyses' name and content text be changed.

As far as WCAG goes this is related to WCAG 2.0 guideline 2.4.3 Focus Order: If a Web page can be navigated sequentially and the navigation sequences affect meaning or operation, focusable components receive focus in an order that preserves meaning and operability. (Level A).

For our purposes this will go beyond one web page and focus to encompass an entire path-dependent process. This R11 requirement should be about completing a beginning-to-end process (buying an airline ticket, completing a multi-page form, taking a online training course) workflow.

Our requirement text should include the notion of 'navigated sequentially' as a critical path. (WCAG 2 uses the definition for 'navigated sequentially' as: navigated in the order defined for advancing focus (from one element to the next) using a keyboard interface.) 

Below I have included draft recommended langauge for this requirement for the group to improve upon.........:-)


R11: Beginning-to-end Process Analyses

It includes adding beginning-to-end critical path/workflow analysis that must be navigated sequentially into the sample of an evaluation. This addresses a user advancing through a process to completion, such as: buying an airline ticket, completing a multi-page form, taking a online training course. This path-dependent process would be in the evaluation sample (the webpages/workflow that will be evaluated). 

* This item is very likely to be one of the targeted "sampling" methods for partial evaluations that we have been talking about *


-----Original Message-----
>From: "Velleman, Eric" <evelleman@bartimeus.nl>
>Sent: Sep 15, 2011 5:57 PM
>To: "public-wai-evaltf@w3.org" <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
>Subject: Requirements
>Dear all,
>Thank you for the great input and discussion today. We still have to resolve a few discussions regarding 3 proposed requirements.
>Please share your thoughts with the group on the list:
>* R03: Unique interpretation
>Explanation: The Methodology itself is uniquely interpretable to people who want to use it. It should make it clear to users what they can do if they choose a certain evaluation approach in the document.
>  - Editor note: Proposal is to drop this one.
>* R08: Address the needs of the target audience
>Explanation: (see also the section on target audience). The Methodology is usable for the target audiences. The document will give a short description of the knowledge necessary for using the Methodology for evaluations.
>  - Editor note: Proposal is to drop this one as it is already described in the earlier section target audience.
>* R11: Critical path analyses
>  - Editor note: Katie will look up the terminology as it is used in WCAG 2.0. We will then use that here and change the explanation to reflect WCAG 2.0. Also we could consider to drop this one as it is already described inside WCAG 2.0.
>Please feel free to propose any other requirements necessary for a good Methodology.
>Kindest regards,

* katie *

Katie Haritos-Shea 
Section 508 Technical Policy Analyst


People may forget exactly what it was that you said or did, 
but they will never forget how you made them feel.......
Received on Friday, 16 September 2011 00:09:32 UTC

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