Re: Templates and use cases

Actually Richard, it is 100% the actual templates I would be interested in - for exactly the reasons I indicated.  

Having worked extensively with content management systems I don't know of any which leave helpful ids relating to templates - which is another reason why it would be good to have access to the actual templates.

And, I would also point out that it might not be so easy to work out the templates used on a 100 page plus site, let alone a 100,000 page plus website... In any case, why would you want to waste time trying when you can ask the evaluation commissioner for them directly...

All the best 

Alistair

p.s. Dreamweaver is an HTML authoring tool - not a Content Management System (CMS).

On 19 Apr 2012, at 20:38, RichardWarren wrote:

> Hi All,
> Sorry I missed the teleconference. I feel that the problem problem probably starts with the wording of section 2
> 
> Requirement 2a “ During this step the common web pages of the website and templates available to the evaluator are identified and documented. "
> 
> It is not the actual templates that we are interested in but how they are applied. I think they would be better described as Elle calls them  - "templated areas". Some CMS such as Dreamweaver helpfully leave comments in the code naming the template and the area. Where this is not available it is often easy to work out from the <div> IDs. Using this makes it helpful for the developer as we can say -'in template XYZ there are the following errors..' and then concentrate on the main content area of relevant pages.
> 
> Regards
> Richard
> 
> 
> From: Alistair Garrison
> Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2012 6:18 PM
> To: Elle ; Detlev Fischer ; Eval TF
> Subject: Re: Templates and use cases
> 
> Hi Detlev,
> 
> To my mind there is true value in having evaluators having access to the templates.
> 
> Lets say that your first move when evaluating is to quickly evaluate and repair the templates - correcting alt missing type issues, etc... and then having them put back into the live site.
> 
> By doing this simple move, when you come to run your automated tools over the site - instead of picking up ever page due to the recurring errors in templates you only pick up those pages which have other errors...
> 
> Hopefully making the whole process smarter and more efficient...
> 
> Otherwise, I'd mirror what Elle said.  I think we need to work 'smart' - by utilising information that already exists and by drawing on the knowledge of the evaluation commissioners.
> 
> It is important to recognise that we do not need to turn over every stone during an evaluation... Really, just enough to conclusively show if success criteria have been failed.
> 
> I'd be super happy if the evaluation commissioner provided a full site map (in the sitemap.xml protocol), use cases for all major functions and empty templates for all page types - just by doing this they would save me so much time and effort...
> 
> Hope this helps
> 
> Alistair
> 
> On 19 Apr 2012, at 17:37, Elle wrote:
> 
> Detlev:
> 
> I think, as you mentioned later in your email with use cases, that templates provide a good starting point. They are only part of the picture for an evaluator, but they represent an efficient way to start the evaluation process. Using templates and reporting on them as such allows an evaluator to identify common elements needing correction in a way that communicates well to the website owner.  It's how he or she already views the site in question. As you say, it's not at all a replacement for evaluating live content and its interaction within the template, but it reduces the redundancy of page-level testing.
> 
> When we remediate our websites, we look first for common elements, often templated elements. Then, we look on a page level basis. If, on the page level analysis, we see that an interaction needs to change because of the conflict with template and page components, we can decide whether to change the template or the page content itself.  That's a decision that's harder to make if we don't view these as separate items, I believe.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Elle
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Detlev Fischer <detlev.fischer@testkreis.de> wrote:
> Hi list,
> 
> just two points that cam to mind after today's teleconference:
> 
> (1) Templates
> 
> The text now (in Step 2a)  talks about "The common web pages of the website and templates available to the evaluator"
> 
> For templates that just cover a part of the web page (e.g. portlets), some aspects of conformance depend on their place in the context of the overall page - think of 1.3.1 and 2.4.1 (heading levels), 1.3.2 Meaningful Sequence, etc. I wonder what the evaluator will actually *do* with the templates provided by the commissioner - if they are empty or out of page context, a complete evaluation seems impossible or of doubtful value. But this may not be intended by the description - not sure. Many observations (potential fails) also result from interactions between template and content on a real page.
> 
> I am not against taking stock of templates per se, just not sure what added value that would bring and how they would be assessed outside a normal page context. Thoughts?
> 
> (2) Use cases
> 
> In cases where evaluations of web applications are commissioned by clients, checking the use cases provided is certainly a good starting point. It's just important to also go beyond documented use cases, especially regarding error handling and unexpected user actions, to capture violations.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Detlev Fischer
> testkreis - das Accessibility-Team von feld.wald.wiese
> c/o feld.wald.wiese
> Borselstraße 3-7 (im Hof)
> 22765 Hamburg
> 
> Tel   +49 (0)40 439 10 68-3
> Mobil +49 (0)1577 170 73 84
> Fax   +49 (0)40 439 10 68-5
> 
> http://www.testkreis.de
> Beratung, Tests und Schulungen für barrierefreie Websites
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> If you want to build a ship, don't drum up the people to gather wood, divide the work, and give orders. Instead, teach them to yearn for the vast and endless sea.
> - Antoine De Saint-Exupéry, The Little Prince
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 19 April 2012 20:11:59 UTC