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

RE: Terminology: critical

From: Vivienne CONWAY <v.conway@ecu.edu.au>
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 08:27:13 +0800
To: Kerstin Probiesch <k.probiesch@googlemail.com>, Detlev Fischer <fischer@dias.de>
CC: "public-wai-evaltf@w3.org" <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
Message-ID: <8AFA77741B11DB47B24131F1E38227A98CAAEDA2FF@XCHG-MS1.ads.ecu.edu.au>
HI all

I also like the term 'cover complete processes' for R11.  It keeps things in line with WCAG 2.0 and also explains it better.


Vivienne L. Conway
From: public-wai-evaltf-request@w3.org [public-wai-evaltf-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Kerstin Probiesch [k.probiesch@googlemail.com]
Sent: Friday, 16 September 2011 7:08 PM
To: Detlev Fischer
Cc: public-wai-evaltf@w3.org
Subject: Re: Terminology: critical

Hi all,

I agree with Detlev's suggestion:

Cover Complete Processes

Otherwise it could sound as if there are processes and critical processes.



Via Mobile

Am 15.09.2011 um 19:41 schrieb Detlev Fischer <fischer@dias.de>:

> DF: I think critical is not really necessary for the definion of paths or processes. We can just refer ti the WCAG 2.0 conformance statement and call it complete processes. As with other elements of the page sample, processes that are central to the use of the site must be included. Whether that means testing every SC on every page or state of the process even if much remains the same will need further work.
> I would reformulate and call it R11: Cover complete processes
> Quoting Samuel Sirois <ssirois@accessibiliteweb.com>:
>> Hi Eval TF,
>> I do believe that we should find a "critical" definition in the
>> terminology definition.
>> For me, associating that with "path", "process", "work-flow" or else
>> doesn't really matters if I can't know what is indeed "critical".
>> What is critical? I won't pretend I am able to formulate a definition,
>> but I may suggest what I do believe is critical to start the
>> conversation.
>> I basically see three things as being critical regarding accessibility.
>>      * Contact page, so that if anything goes wrong, the user is able
>>        to obtain information on how to communicate with the website's
>>        owners.
>>      * Accessibility page, so that if there is any hints on how to
>>        improve the experience on the website, the user is able to
>>        access that information.
>>      * The main goal of the website as seen by the owners. If the
>>        owners want to sell items from a boutique, then the items
>>        catalogue and the payment process should be conform to WCAG 2.0.
>>        If the owners want to offer the users a place to exchange ideas
>>        on a specific subject, then whatever the tool used (forum, blog,
>>        mailing list) should be conform to WCAG 2.0.
>> I believe it is less critical (and less frustrating) for users if the
>> "historical page" is not fully conform to WCAG 2.0 if the user can still
>> complete and use whatever the website has to offer.
>> When I am sampling for an evaluation, that's what I have in mind when I
>> think about something "critical".
>> Is that any close to what others had in mind?
>> Regards,
>> Samuel
> --
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> Detlev Fischer PhD
> DIAS GmbH - Daten, Informationssysteme und Analysen im Sozialen
> Geschäftsführung: Thomas Lilienthal, Michael Zapp
> Telefon: +49-40-43 18 75-25
> Mobile: +49-157 7-170 73 84
> Fax: +49-40-43 18 75-19
> E-Mail: fischer@dias.de
> Anschrift: Schulterblatt 36, D-20357 Hamburg
> Amtsgericht Hamburg HRB 58 167
> Geschäftsführer: Thomas Lilienthal, Michael Zapp
> ---------------------------------------------------------------

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.

Received on Monday, 19 September 2011 00:28:36 UTC

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