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

RE: New version Methodology

From: Velleman, Eric <evelleman@bartimeus.nl>
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 12:15:18 +0000
To: RichardWarren <richard.warren@userite.com>, "public-wai-evaltf@w3.org"<public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
Message-ID: <3D063CE533923349B1B52F26312B0A467784DD@s107ma.bart.local>
Hello Richard,

In the discussion the general agreement was that the conformance claim sets the scope of the evaluation. This means that if a certain technology is chosen for the conformance claim, this could exclude parts of a complete process because the complete process is not what the evaluator would be looking at. If we say that all parts of the complete process should be in the evaluation this would limit the flexibility of the website owner to state the conformance claim for the evaluation.

I do agree that in the current form, any conformance claim would end up being non conformant with WCAG2.0. This is why I added the question mark..

Kindest regards,

Eric Velleman
Technisch directeur
Stichting Accessibility
Universiteit Twente

Oudenoord 325,
3513EP Utrecht (The Netherlands);
Tel: +31 (0)30 - 2398270
www.accessibility.nl / www.wabcluster.org / www.econformance.eu /
www.game-accessibility.com/ www.eaccessplus.eu

Lees onze disclaimer: www.accessibility.nl/algemeen/disclaimer
Accessibility is Member van het W3C

Van: RichardWarren [richard.warren@userite.com]
Verzonden: donderdag 9 februari 2012 13:00
Aan: Velleman, Eric; public-wai-evaltf@w3.org
Onderwerp: Re: New version Methodology

Dear All,

I am sorry - but I missed the discussions about excluding parts of a process
( Point 9 in Eric's email). Surely this is the wrong way round. You cannot
exclude part of a **process**  because, by doing so, you then stop it being
a process.

We must not confuse our terminology. It is possible to exclude parts of a
*website* from an evaluation because that is not a process that has to be

You can evaluate individual parts of a process and say that "this part is
compliant" so that developers can make progress, but for the process itself
it is the whole process from beginning to end that must be compliant,
otherwise it is not a compliant process.


-----Original Message-----
From: Velleman, Eric
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 11:39 PM
To: public-wai-evaltf@w3.org
Subject: New version Methodology

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

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:
- 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
- Done

Kindest regards,

Received on Thursday, 9 February 2012 12:17:01 UTC

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