W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wai-evaltf@w3.org > August 2012

RE: Comment #24 - Evaluating Templates with no content

From: Vivienne CONWAY <v.conway@ecu.edu.au>
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 11:14:31 +0800
To: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
CC: Eval TF <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
Message-ID: <8AFA77741B11DB47B24131F1E38227A9CAB0E4CA60@XCHG-MS1.ads.ecu.edu.au>
HI Shadi
I'm thinking it is both.  Sorry, sitting on the fence.

It does make the evaluator's life easier, and to provide consistency I think it's necessary to know how accessible the basic template is.


Regards

Vivienne L. Conway, B.IT(Hons), MACS CT, AALIA(cs)
PhD Candidate & Sessional Lecturer, Edith Cowan University, Perth, W.A.
Director, Web Key IT Pty Ltd.
v.conway@ecu.edu.au
v.conway@webkeyit.com
Mob: 0415 383 673

This email is confidential and intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify me immediately by return email or telephone and destroy the original message.
________________________________________
From: Shadi Abou-Zahra [shadi@w3.org]
Sent: Wednesday, 22 August 2012 8:29 PM
To: Vivienne CONWAY
Cc: Eval TF
Subject: Re: Comment #24 - Evaluating Templates with no content

Hi Vivienne,

I agree that this particular type of evaluation is outside the scope of
the methodology (as we have defined it). The question is, what is the
role of evaluating *templates* (the empty shells) for post-development
conformance evaluation?

Long ago when I was actively involved in evaluation, I recall spotting a
potential issue in some of the templates that were infrequently used on
a particular website. It would have taken me ages to find instances of
pages with the particular problems but because I knew the templates and
the way the content was generated, I knew the patterns to look for.

Did just make my life easier (= should be an advice to evaluators in the
methodology), or was it actually necessary to maximize confidence in my
evaluation (= should be a requirement in the methodology)?

Best,
   Shadi


On 22.8.2012 13:55, Vivienne CONWAY wrote:
> Hi all
> I thought I'd try to address some ideas about templates with no content.
>
> In comment #24, Detlev mentioned that he "did not see how one woudl evaluate the template on its own, instead of a particular instance with all content rendered as web page."
>
> I've just been asked to evaluate a set of templates before they have content added so that the developer can check the accessibility of them before content is added and might have to be removed again for a re-do of the page.  This does happen quite a lot, and we are also asked to have our user testers look at sets of templates before content is added as well.
>
> I think that as we're continually advocating that accessibility should involved early in the development of websites, and then at every stage of the life cycle of the website, we should see this as a good thing.  A developer designs a template for the client, and then makes sure that this template is accessible.
>
> My only concern is that this may not really relate to the methodology as we're talking about complete websites, and not single pages or templates.  However, we are pitching the methodology as being relevant for developers etc. also.  Any thoughts?
>
>
> Regards
>
> Vivienne L. Conway, B.IT(Hons), MACS CT, AALIA(cs)
> PhD Candidate & Sessional Lecturer, Edith Cowan University, Perth, W.A.
> Director, Web Key IT Pty Ltd.
> v.conway@ecu.edu.au
> v.conway@webkeyit.com
> Mob: 0415 383 673
>
> This email is confidential and intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify me immediately by return email or telephone and destroy the original message.
> ________________________________________
> From: Shadi Abou-Zahra [shadi@w3.org]
> Sent: Monday, 20 August 2012 6:34 PM
> To: Eval TF
> Cc: Eric Velleman
> Subject: [important] closed and open comments with actions
>
> Dear Eval TF,
>
> As a recap, please see the following actions for this week:
>
>
> # Comments from Public Review (WD 27 March)
>    - <http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments>
>    - There were no comments on this disposition of comments from Eval TF
> in the survey of 7 August 2012; All comments have been closed now.
>    - *ACTION:* Let us know immediately if you have objections.
>
>
> # Comments from Eval TF Review (ED 30 July)
>    - <http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730>
>    - Proposed resolutions available are for your review for all comments
> except #24, #29, and #30, and an on-going discussion on comment #32.
>    - *ACTION:* Review this disposition of comments by _today_.
>
>
> # Comments from WCAG WG Review (ED 30 July)
>    - <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-evaltf/2012Aug/0034>
>    - Editors working on proposed resolutions for these comments; let us
> know any comments or thoughts you may have on it as well.
>    - *ACTION:* Read the WCAG WG comments before the next call.
>
>
> Regards,
>     Shadi
>
> --
> Shadi Abou-Zahra - http://www.w3.org/People/shadi/
> Activity Lead, W3C/WAI International Program Office
> Evaluation and Repair Tools Working Group (ERT WG)
> Research and Development Working Group (RDWG)
>
> 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.
>
> CRICOS IPC 00279B
>
>
>

--
Shadi Abou-Zahra - http://www.w3.org/People/shadi/
Activity Lead, W3C/WAI International Program Office
Evaluation and Repair Tools Working Group (ERT WG)
Research and Development Working Group (RDWG)

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.

CRICOS IPC 00279B
Received on Thursday, 23 August 2012 03:16:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:52:14 GMT