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

Re: Comment #24 - Evaluating Templates with no content

From: Detlev Fischer <detlev.fischer@testkreis.de>
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 08:41:40 +0200
Cc: Eval TF <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
Message-Id: <07825596-7ED8-41D1-959D-04C4EAC03991@testkreis.de>
To: Vivienne CONWAY <v.conway@ecu.edu.au>
Hi everyone,

I have not personally inspected empty templates for accessibility  
issues but I am happy to believe that this can be very valuable. I  
just think the proper point of reference in WCAG-EM is a set of  
*pages* aggregated as sample.

Empty templates sit somewhat oddly with the rest of the sample. That's  
why I think that the mentioning of 'templates available to the  
evaluator' in Step 2.a and Step 3.a is a bit confusing. By definiton,  
the empty template will be devoid of real content, so many SC (1.1.1,  
1.3.1, 1.3.2, etc) cannot be checked meaningfully. This is at odds  
with Requirement 4.a: "Each web page in the sample (...) shall be  
checked for meeting *each of the WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria* (...)" (my  
emphasis). If templates are not part of the sample (for example, as  
instantiated pages), then they cannot be checked fully and also, sit  
outside of every score function we may eventually devise to be applied  
to the evaluation results (even a simple count of fass/fail per SC  
across pages).

I would recommend a note that "in some contexts, it can be helpful to  
check page templates on their own" or similar and make that an  
optional part of WCAG-EM, and just talk about the evaluation of  
*pages* (incl. page states) in the steps of WCAG-EM.

Best,
Detlev

PS: Shadi and Eric, tHanks for the tons of work that went into  
addressing the issues raised and proposing changes. I agree with the  
resolutions in the disposition of comments (hope I haven't overlooked  
something I later find I am not happy with ;-)

On 23 Aug 2012, at 05:14, Vivienne CONWAY wrote:

> 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
>

-- 
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
Received on Thursday, 23 August 2012 06:39:52 GMT

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