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

Re: Evaluation scheme with three options - proposal

From: Michael S Elledge <elledge@msu.edu>
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 13:26:28 -0500
Message-ID: <4F429054.2070508@msu.edu>
To: public-wai-evaltf@w3.org, Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
Hi Shadi--

I noticed in the BAD example that success criteria for which there was 
no related web content received a "Pass." I'm curious why that approach 
was chosen rather than to identify such instances as "Not Applicable" or 
"NA." Wouldn't using the term "NA" be both more informative and accurate?

Mike

On 2/20/2012 10:43 AM, Shadi Abou-Zahra wrote:
> Small addition:
>
> On 20.2.2012 16:28, Shadi Abou-Zahra wrote:
>> 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>
>
> Here is a positive example too: ;)
>  - <http://www.w3.org/WAI/demos/bad/after/reports/home.html>
>
>
> Regards,
>   Shadi
>
>
>> 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
>>>> ------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
Received on Monday, 20 February 2012 18:27:00 GMT

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