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

Re: New version Methodology

From: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 13:58:18 +0100
Message-ID: <4F33C2EA.4070807@w3.org>
To: Eric Velleman <evelleman@bartimeus.nl>
CC: "public-wai-evaltf@w3.org" <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
I also disagree with the addition to section 3 pointed out in item 9.

I think we can allow website owners to define what the target website is 
(an entire site, sub-site, application, portlet, etc.) but I think we 
agreed that the evaluation then applies to that entire website.

It should still be possible to *report* what parts of the website do not 
conform, but our methodology should not conflict with WCAG.

I think this also relates to item 3 about reporting Success Criteria met 
beyond the target level of conformance. The reporting section may be 
more key than currently assumed...

Best,
   Shadi


On 9.2.2012 13:15, Velleman, Eric wrote:
> 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
> =========================
> 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
> followed.
>
> 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.
>
>
> Richard
>
> -----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
> 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,
>
> Eric
>
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
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)
Received on Thursday, 9 February 2012 12:58:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:52:13 GMT