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

Re: Comment #24 - Evaluating Templates with no content

From: <kvotis@iti.gr>
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 09:50:12 +0300
Message-ID: <26868baefbf274b9346cfdcf856da43a.squirrel@mail.iti.gr>
To: "Detlev Fischer" <detlev.fischer@testkreis.de>
Cc: "Vivienne CONWAY" <v.conway@ecu.edu.au>, "Eval TF" <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
Hi Everyone

actually many times in Greece, some Greek companies (e.g. Private Bank due
to confidentiality issues) sent us empty templates to be evaluated for
accessibility and i fully agree with Shadi's position


regards

kostas


> 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
> Borselstra?e 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 f?r barrierefreie Websites
>
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 23 August 2012 06:50:39 GMT

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