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

New version Methodology

From: Velleman, Eric <evelleman@bartimeus.nl>
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 23:39:52 +0000
To: "public-wai-evaltf@w3.org" <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
Message-ID: <3D063CE533923349B1B52F26312B0A46777E3E@s107ma.bart.local>
Dear EvalTF,

Tomorrow is our next Telco. I am looking forward to speaking to you all after the many discussions in the last weeks. As an overview in this mail, below are the changes I made to the new version. I only just delivered the new version to Shadi, so I hope we can have a look at it during tomorrows Telco.

Date of new version: 20120209

Changes to the document:

1. Because a sample only covers a small portion of a website and because we want to evaluate conformance to WCAG 2.0, the entire sample should be without failures of Success criteria. This means that any failure found leads to non-conformance of the website regardless of the impact or barrier.
- Done

2. The section on error margin is deleted. This margin is now set to 0%.
- Done

3. Added the requirement in 6.1 that the conformance claim should provide a “list of success criteria beyond the level of conformance claimed that have been met. This information should be provided in a form that users can use, preferably machine-readable metadata” (from: http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG/#conformance-claims).
- Done

4. We should include the possibility for website owners to fix incidental errors without a totally new evaluation being necessary. Inserted into 5.5
- Done

5. Leonie adds to the previous: My suggestion is that after the website owner has fixed the failed criteria, it isn't only the original sample of pages that is tested. Instead it's a combination of pages from the original sample and randomly selected new pages. Is that ok? Inserted into 5.5
- Done

Clause 3

6. Significant changes to the scope section to reflect the discussion. Our discussion makes the conformance claim the parent of the scope. This means that the scope of an Evaluation is not necessarily the full website, but flexible as discussed. This should then be more in line with the definition of website that we plan to use.
- This means that the possibility to exclude web pages from the scope is no longer required if the scope is set by the conformance claim as proposed (clause 3). I took the text out. This section is only usefull if the Methodology focuses on full websites (so it would be possible to make exclusions for people who just want to evaluate a part of a website).
- Done

7. If scope is set by the conformance claim, then the following subclauses are not longer necessary:
- Base URI (out)
- Key Functionalities (clause 3.4)(out)
- Perception and function (out)
- Alternative (out)
- Webpages behind authorization (out)
- Technologies used on the web pages (out)
- Dividing the scope into multiple evaluations (out)
All taken out because not necessary if the conformance claim is the parent of the scope.
- Done

8. Complete processes are still necessary (in). I also kept the definitions of resource and complete process in the document.
- Done

9. As requested by the group, I added (below the definitions in clause 3):
“It is possible to exclude particular sections of a website from the scope even though they are part of a complete process. Examples for possible exclusion are: user generated content, wiki’s, bulletin boards etc.“
@@@Note that we are less strict here than WCAG2.0 and conformance statements made would not conform to WCAG2.0.
Also added: “The Evaluation can also focus only on specific technologies excluding all other technologies used.”
@@@Note that this is also less strict than WCAG2.0 and would not conform with WCAG conformance statement.
- Done

Clause 5

10. Deleted subclause 5.5 Error Margin
- Done
Clause 6

11. Added requirement on conformance in 6.1 (are we sure we want that? It would require to look at more than just the level claimed=more time=more money)
- Done

Kindest regards,

Received on Wednesday, 8 February 2012 23:45:51 UTC

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