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

Re: Evaluation scheme with three options - proposal

From: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 16:28:54 +0100
Message-ID: <4F4266B6.9040504@w3.org>
To: Kerstin Probiesch <k.probiesch@googlemail.com>, EVAL TF <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
Hi Kerstin, All,

I'm not too sure what the difference between options #1 and #2 would be 
in practice, as I hope that evaluators will simply link to Techniques 
rather than to attempt to explain the issues themselves.


Here is an example of what a report of option #1 could look like:
  - <http://www.w3.org/WAI/demos/bad/before/reports/home.html>

Note: this is a report for a single page but it could still be a basis 
for reports of option #1 for entire websites; it just has a pass/fail 
for each Success Criterion and some Techniques to justify these claims.


For option #2 we could introduce a scoring function in addition to the 
pass/fail result. This would require the evaluators to fully evaluate 
every page in the selected sample and count the frequencies of errors to 
calculate a score. It could help compare websites and motivate the 
developers (at least those who are close to full compliance).


Finally, option #3 would be more in-depth reports with examples of the 
errors and explanations of ways to repair the errors. These are, as 
Kerstin says, developed by consultants (as opposed to pure evaluators) 
for developers who are new to accessibility.

We attempted to provide such an example report in the initial version of 
the Before and After Demo (BAD) but it is really lots of work:
  - <http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/2005/Demo/report/>


Regards,
   Shadi


On 19.2.2012 20:36, Elle wrote:
> 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
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>
>

-- 
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 Monday, 20 February 2012 15:29:24 GMT

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