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

Re: Evaluation scheme with three options - proposal

From: Elle <nethermind@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2012 14:36:10 -0500
Message-ID: <CAJ=fddPy8Sgg1-R-bwBOkEnmyptZ2BCWqy7TQpCs4s+SnXgeeA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kerstin Probiesch <k.probiesch@googlemail.com>
Cc: EVAL TF <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
Kerstin:

I like these three options.  I am interested, however, in how many clients
that typically ask for something as abbreviated as Option 1.  For those in
this group, do you experience situations with a lot of clients who don't
want more than the pass/fail report?



Regards,
Elle




On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 4:36 AM, Kerstin Probiesch <
k.probiesch@googlemail.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> in our last teleconference we discussed a evaluation scheme with three
> options based upon 100% Conformance. I appreciate these proposals and see
> them as chance to integrate or point to the three documents of WCAG2:
> Guidelines and SCs, Understanding and How to meet.
>
> One proposal for handling the documents in an evaluation scheme, based upon
> the normative guidelines and SCs as core:
>
> =====
> Option 1: WCAG 2.0 – Core Test ("light version" or whatever the wording
> later will be)
>
> # Guideline X (Heading)
>
> ## Checkpoint: SC XX (Subheading)
>
> Result: pass/fail
>
> Character: global/regional (or another wording) - – if regional: a list of
> pages where the problem exists
>
> ## Checkpoint: SC XX (Subheading)
>
> Result: pass/fail
>
> Character: global/regional (or another wording) - – if regional: a list of
> pages where the problem exists
>
> (...)
>
> =====
>
> Use cases for Option1:
>
> - experienced developers and clients who know WCAG2 and need just the
> results,
> - comparative evaluations (20 hotel websites, city websites…)
> - or for example just with the SCs of level a and a smaller scope as
> pre-test to decide together with the client what the best next steps might
> be (evaluation, consulting, probably workshops for editors)
>
> =====
>
> Option 2: WCAG 2.0 – Core incl. understanding (name?)
>
> # Guideline X (Heading)
>
> ## Checkpoint: SC XX (Subheading)
>
> Result: pass/fail
>
> Character: global/regional (or another wording) – if regional: a list of
> pages where the problem exists
>
> Problem (Subheading): Description of existing problems and barriers for
> users (here know how out of the understanding document could be part of the
> description).
>
> ## Checkpoint: SC XX (Subheading)
>
> Result: pass/fail
>
> Character: global/regional (or another wording) – if regional: a list of
> pages where the problem exists
>
> Problem (Subheading): Description of existing problems and barriers for
> users (here know how out of the understanding document could be part of the
> description).
>
> (...)
>
> ======
>
> Use cases:
>
> - comparative evaluations (depending on the specific time and costs)
>
> - if a client just want descriptions
>
> - regular tests like "evaluation of the week"
>
> =====
>
> Option 3: WCAG 2.0 – Core, understanding, how to meet (name?)
>
> # Guideline X (Heading)
>
> ## Checkpoint: SC XX (Subheading)
>
> Result: pass/fail
>
> Character: global/regional (or another wording) – if regional: a list of
> pages where the problem exists
>
> Problem (Subheading): description/explanation of existing problems and
> barriers for users (here know how out of the Understanding Document could
> be
> part of the description).
>
> Action (Subheading): Description of techniques for meeting the SC (could be
> techniques which are already in the techniques document or new techniques
> which are not in the document, but with which the SC can be met). Here even
> usability aspects can play a role, like: you can do a, b, c or d – I/we
> propose/recommend c.
>
> ## Checkpoint: SC XX (Subheading)
>
> Result: pass/fail
>
> Character: global/regional (or another wording) – if regional: a list of
> pages where the problem exists
>
> Problem (Subheading): description/explanation of existing problems and
> barriers for users (here know how out of the Understanding Document could
> be
> part of the description).
>
> Action (Subheading): Description of techniques for meeting the SC (could be
> techniques which are already in the techniques document or new techniques
> which are not in the document, but with which the SC can be met). Here even
> usability aspects can play a role, like: you can do a, b, c or d – I/we
> propose/recommend c.
>
> (...)
>
> ======
>
> Use cases:
>
> - test incl. consulting
>
> - for clients who are not very familiar with accessibility and WCAG2
>
> ============
>
> For a seal/badge or any formal confirmation Option 1 is the minimum.
>
> A report might also / should? also have intro parts like:
>
> - Short description of the Option 1, 2 or 3
>
> - Something like a disclaimer ("results might not be complete, therefore it
> is important to go through the page, view all similar elements and solve
> the
> corresponding problems)
>
> - Glossary (for specific terms we used in our methodology -like
> regional/global – if we decide to use them)
>
> - Documentation of the used OS, Browsers and Versions, probably used
> assistive technologies incl. versions
>
> - Tested Conformance Level (A, AA, AA)
>
> - Results
>
> - Summary, probably written as an overall impression - we discussed in this
> list the 'motivation factor'. I think the aim of an evaluation is not to
> motivate. Nevertheless, writing a nice overall impression in a report, may
> have this function. Ok, except when there is nothing nice to say.
>
> This scheme could probably also be used for processes, pdf, flash and so on
> and I think it would be flexible enough (time, costs, ...) and in the same
> time valid against the Conformance Requirements, because the core
> (evaluation itself) is the same in every option.
>
> Important, as I see it, is that the evaluator has the three different
> aspects in mind and in the report, which I believe shouldn't be mixed:
> evaluation (Core, testing SCs), explanation (description of the
> problem/violation, understanding) and consulting (how to meet,
> usability,..)
>
>
> The evaluator could document the "progress toward meeting success criteria
> from all levels beyond the achieved level of conformance": If for example
> the evaluation is for Level A with Option 3 the SCs of AA could also be
> checked (pass/fail) without any further description or with further
> description, depending on the contract.
>
> Advantage: every evaluator or testing organization uses the methodology and
> a standardized 'template' for the core and the evaluation itself. The
> descriptions of existing barriers (explanatory part/understanding in Option
> 2 and 3) and the consulting part (How to meet, in Option 3) would be the
> specific added value for the clients/the evaluator/the testing
> organization.
>
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Best
>
> --Kerstin
>
>
> -------------------------------------
> Kerstin Probiesch - Freie Beraterin
> Barrierefreiheit, Social Media, Webkompetenz
> Kantstraße 10/19 | 35039 Marburg
> Tel.: 06421 167002
> E-Mail: mail@barrierefreie-informationskultur.de
> Web: http://www.barrierefreie-informationskultur.de
>
> XING: http://www.xing.com/profile/Kerstin_Probiesch
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/kprobiesch
> ------------------------------------
>
>
>


-- 
If you want to build a ship, don't drum up the people to gather wood,
divide the work, and give orders. Instead, teach them to yearn for the vast
and endless sea.
- Antoine De Saint-Exupéry, The Little Prince
Received on Sunday, 19 February 2012 19:36:40 GMT

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