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

Re: Not Applicable (was Re: Evaluation scheme with three options - proposal)

From: Michael S Elledge <elledge@msu.edu>
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2012 17:20:26 -0500
Message-ID: <4F57DF2A.3020007@msu.edu>
To: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
CC: Loďc Martínez Normand <loic@fi.upm.es>, "public-wai-evaltf@w3.org" <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
Hi Everyone--

To Shadi's point, "NA" may be a more nuanced term than at first glance. 
For example, the "NA" situation I most often encounter is when a 
Guideline isn't represented on a page. In Loic's first example, I would 
give "NA" for a situation where there were no flashing images on the 
page, rather than a "Pass." But then, I wouldn't address level 2.3.1 at 
all, since classifying Guideline 2.3 "NA" would cover it. If there was 
flashing content on the page, however, I would then evaluate it against 
the success criteria in 2.3.1, and it would be either a "Pass" or "Fail."

Likewise, in a situation where there was no time limit on interaction 
with a webpage I would classify Guideline 2.2 as "NA." If there was a 
time limit, I would determine if at least one of the criteria of 2.2.1 
was met, and either "Pass" or "Fail" the page. This agrees with what 
Loic said.

Mike

On 2/28/2012 1:57 AM, Shadi Abou-Zahra wrote:
> Good point, Loic.
>
> I agree that if we are going to introduce the term Not Applicable then 
> we will need to define it very carefully and explore the impact, as it 
> is a kind of interpretation of WCAG.
>
> Best,
>   Shadi
>
>
> On 27.2.2012 12:54, Loďc Martínez Normand wrote:
>> Dear all,
>>
>> I would like to say a couple of things. First, since long ago, the Sidar
>> Foundation uses "not applicable" as one of the individual results for
>> evaluating each SC. As many have said it seems more logical as a 
>> value for
>> customers and (I think) it provides more information that a "pass" 
>> with no
>> applicable content.
>>
>> Having said that, I also believe that in WCAG 2.0 that depends on
>> individual SC. Some of them have been written so that there is never the
>> possibility of having a "N.A" result. And some other are written in
>> conditional format, so it is almost "natural" to provide a "N.A" when 
>> there
>> is not applicable content.
>>
>> An example of the first group of SC (the ones that will always have just
>> pass/fail) is 2.3.1 (three flashes or below threshold). Each web page 
>> will
>> either pass or fail. There is no way we can say "not applicable".
>>
>> An example of the second group of SC (the ones with conditional 
>> statements)
>> is 2.2.1 (timing adjustable). My understanding of the words of 2.2.1 is
>> that if there is no time limit then the success criterion does not 
>> apply.
>>
>> In summary, maybe the methodology could list which SC have pass/fail 
>> values
>> and which others may have pass/fail/NA.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Loďc
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 3:13 AM, Elle<nethermind@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>
>>> > From a client perspective, I would rather see "Pass/Fail/Not 
>>> Applicable"
>>> for the exact reasons that Vivienne describes.  We do indeed use 
>>> snapshots
>>> drawn in easily digestible pictures for leadership. It's important to
>>> understand the true measure of the capability of your development 
>>> teams to
>>> meet accessibility requirements, and having false positives (so to 
>>> speak)
>>> inflates that score and prevents us from seeing the severity of the
>>> non-conformance/risk.
>>>
>>> Respectfully,
>>> Elle
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 10:00 AM, Boland Jr, Frederick E.<
>>> frederick.boland@nist.gov>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> Fyi - The latest W3C WAI ATAG2.0 draft success criteria satisfaction
>>>> options for conformance are: yes, no, not applicable:
>>>> http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2012/ED-ATAG20-20120210/#conf-req
>>>>
>>>> Thanks Tim Boland NIST
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Detlev Fischer [mailto:fischer@dias.de]
>>>> Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 9:49 AM
>>>> To: public-wai-evaltf@w3.org
>>>> Subject: Re: Not Applicable (was Re: Evaluation scheme with three 
>>>> options
>>>> - proposal)
>>>>
>>>> I agree that the use of N.A. has practical advantages and that not 
>>>> using
>>>> it will be confusing to many people not into testing technicalities.
>>>> It's just a tradeoff whether we want to upset or run counter to a WCAG
>>>> WG decision that was seemingly made after lengthy deliberation some 
>>>> time
>>>> ago.
>>>>
>>>> Regarding techniques vs SC as checkpoints, I do think that checkpoints
>>>> should be more detailed then, say SC 1.1.1 oe SC 1.3.1 which 
>>>> combine an
>>>> awful lot of different requirements.
>>>>
>>>> When I said in the last telecon that techniques themselves should 
>>>> not be
>>>> used as checkpoints, I intended to say that the level of technique is
>>>> (often) too fine-grained for a checkpoint, especially since several
>>>> techniques may be applicable and used to meet a specific SC and in
>>>> practical terms, the check may cover several of them at the same time.
>>>>
>>>> For example, looking at alternative text, you would look at all images
>>>> on a page and determine whether the alt text should give the 
>>>> purpose or
>>>> destination of linked images, the content of unlinked images, or be
>>>> empty for decorative images. For all these things, different 
>>>> techniques
>>>> exist, but in terms of checkpoint procedure, you just run through all
>>>> images and check for each one that the appropriate technique has been
>>>> used.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Detlev
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Am 23.02.2012 12:02, schrieb Kerstin Probiesch:
>>>>> +1 for what Richards says :-)
>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>>>>>> Von: RichardWarren [mailto:richard.warren@userite.com]
>>>>>> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 23. Februar 2012 11:53
>>>>>> An: Vivienne CONWAY; Eval TF
>>>>>> Betreff: Re: Not Applicable (was Re: Evaluation scheme with three
>>>>>> options - proposal)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Vivienne and all.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When I use the "pass" term for things that do not exist I get 
>>>>>> queries
>>>>>> from
>>>>>> my clients who think that I have not done the job properly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To save us all the hassle of explaining the complexity of W3C 
>>>>>> logic,  I
>>>>>> therefore use N/A for SCs and Guideline 1.2.  on my score sheet.  At
>>>>>> the top
>>>>>> of my score sheet I explain the meanings of Pass, Fail and N/A
>>>>>> including
>>>>>> that we give a pass score value to N/A  because the designer has
>>>>>> avoided
>>>>>> using the relevant technologies that can cause particular problems.
>>>>>> This
>>>>>> means the in the executive summary I can count N/As as Pass and 
>>>>>> avoid
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> hassle. (eg. "The site passes all 12 guidelines")
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Richard
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: Vivienne CONWAY
>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 9:09 AM
>>>>>> To: Shadi Abou-Zahra
>>>>>> Cc: Eval TF
>>>>>> Subject: RE: Not Applicable (was Re: Evaluation scheme with three
>>>>>> options -
>>>>>> proposal)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> HI Shadi&   all
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's true, however where it comes unstuck is in the reporting.  
>>>>>> CEO's
>>>>>> like
>>>>>> to see lovely graphs showing how many of the criteria have been met.
>>>>>> If the
>>>>>> data is recorded as 'passed' even though it doesn't exist (the audio
>>>>>> file),
>>>>>> then the graph and any stats look better than they are really 
>>>>>> are.  If
>>>>>> it is
>>>>>> n/a or something similar, they can't confuse this with something 
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> actually meets a requirement.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Vivienne L. Conway, B.IT(Hons), MACS CT
>>>>>> PhD Candidate&   Sessional Lecturer, Edith Cowan University, 
>>>>>> Perth, W.A.
>>>>>> Director, Web Key IT Pty Ltd.
>>>>>> v.conway@ecu.edu.au
>>>>>> v.conway@webkeyit.com
>>>>>> Mob: 0415 383 673
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This email is confidential and intended only for the use of the
>>>>>> individual
>>>>>> or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you 
>>>>>> are
>>>>>> notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this 
>>>>>> email
>>>>>> is
>>>>>> strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, 
>>>>>> please
>>>>>> notify
>>>>>> me immediately by return email or telephone and destroy the original
>>>>>> message.
>>>>>> ________________________________________
>>>>>> From: Shadi Abou-Zahra [shadi@w3.org]
>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, 23 February 2012 6:02 PM
>>>>>> To: Vivienne CONWAY
>>>>>> Cc: Eval TF
>>>>>> Subject: Re: Not Applicable (was Re: Evaluation scheme with three
>>>>>> options -
>>>>>> proposal)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Vivienne,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Isn't it the same if you called it "passed" or "not applicable" then
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> content is added? In both cases your report is already out of 
>>>>>> date and
>>>>>> the content needs to be reassessed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Note that even in this most basic report it is pretty clear when the
>>>>>> content passed because there was no corresponding content:
>>>>>>     -<http://www.w3.org/WAI/demos/bad/before/reports/home.html>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>      Shadi
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 23.2.2012 09:47, Vivienne CONWAY wrote:
>>>>>>> HI Alistair
>>>>>>> I agree with you on this one for sure.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If I can't find an issue (say an audio file) that does not
>>>>>> necessarily
>>>>>>> mean that the website should pass on that criteria. It may be added
>>>>>> later,
>>>>>>> or I may just not have located it when looking for suitable 
>>>>>>> pages to
>>>>>>> assess.  I'm more comfortable with 'not applicable' or 'not tested'
>>>>>> or
>>>>>>> 'not located on reviewed pages' or something similar.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Vivienne L. Conway, B.IT(Hons), MACS CT
>>>>>>> PhD Candidate&    Sessional Lecturer, Edith Cowan University, 
>>>>>>> Perth,
>>>>>> W.A.
>>>>>>> Director, Web Key IT Pty Ltd.
>>>>>>> v.conway@ecu.edu.au<mailto:v.conway@ecu.edu.au>
>>>>>>> v.conway@webkeyit.com<mailto:v.conway@webkeyit.com>
>>>>>>> Mob: 0415 383 673
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This email is confidential and intended only for the use of the
>>>>>> individual
>>>>>>> or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, 
>>>>>>> you are
>>>>>>> notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this
>>>>>> email is
>>>>>>> strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, 
>>>>>>> please
>>>>>>> notify me immediately by return email or telephone and destroy the
>>>>>>> original message.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>>> From: Alistair Garrison [alistair.j.garrison@gmail.com]
>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, 23 February 2012 5:43 PM
>>>>>>> To: Eval TF
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Not Applicable (was Re: Evaluation scheme with three
>>>>>>> options - proposal)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I would feel a little uncomfortable declaring something to be 
>>>>>>> passed
>>>>>> -
>>>>>>> simply because I could not find any applicable content.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I know when showing conformity with ISO documentation "reference to
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> appropriate Standard (title, number, and year of issue); when the
>>>>>>> certification applies to only a Portion of a standard, the 
>>>>>>> applicable
>>>>>>> portion(s) should be clearly identified;" (ISO Guide 23).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In our situation, this would mean that we simply list all things
>>>>>> (most
>>>>>>> probably Success Criteria) we have found to be applicable in the
>>>>>>> Conformance Claim.  Then go on to state which of these things has
>>>>>> been
>>>>>>> passed or failed in the report.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hope this helps.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All the best
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Alistair
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 22 Feb 2012, at 12:37, Emmanuelle Gutiérrez y Restrepo wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My +1 too :-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think that this is very important.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>> Emmanuelle
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2012/2/22 Velleman,
>>>>>>> Eric<evelleman@bartimeus.nl<mailto:evelleman@bartimeus.nl>>
>>>>>>> Hi Vivienne,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Think I put it on the agenda. So lets talk about it.
>>>>>>> Kindest regards,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Eric
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ________________________________________
>>>>>>> Van: Vivienne CONWAY
>>>>>> [v.conway@ecu.edu.au<mailto:v.conway@ecu.edu.au>]
>>>>>>> Verzonden: woensdag 22 februari 2012 3:13
>>>>>>> Aan: Michael S Elledge; Shadi Abou-Zahra
>>>>>>> CC: public-wai-evaltf@w3.org<mailto:public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
>>>>>>> Onderwerp: RE: Not Applicable (was Re: Evaluation scheme with three
>>>>>>> options  -  proposal)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi all
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I just ran across this discussion which is something that I 
>>>>>>> think we
>>>>>>> should put in the EVTF methodology.  I know that I've been using 
>>>>>>> n/a
>>>>>> when
>>>>>>> it seemed the item was not present in the website e.g. videos.
>>>>>> However if
>>>>>>> this is the W3C consensus, I'll need to change my reporting.  
>>>>>>> Can we
>>>>>> talk
>>>>>>> about this in our teleconference this week?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Vivienne L. Conway, B.IT<http://B.IT/>(Hons), MACS CT
>>>>>>> PhD Candidate&    Sessional Lecturer, Edith Cowan University, 
>>>>>>> Perth,
>>>>>> W.A.
>>>>>>> Director, Web Key IT Pty Ltd.
>>>>>>> v.conway@ecu.edu.au<mailto:v.conway@ecu.edu.au>
>>>>>>> v.conway@webkeyit.com<mailto:v.conway@webkeyit.com>
>>>>>>> Mob: 0415 383 673
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This email is confidential and intended only for the use of the
>>>>>> individual
>>>>>>> or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, 
>>>>>>> you are
>>>>>>> notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this
>>>>>> email is
>>>>>>> strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, 
>>>>>>> please
>>>>>>> notify me immediately by return email or telephone and destroy the
>>>>>>> original message.
>>>>>>> ________________________________________
>>>>>>> From: Michael S Elledge [elledge@msu.edu<mailto:elledge@msu.edu>]
>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, 22 February 2012 2:29 AM
>>>>>>> To: Shadi Abou-Zahra
>>>>>>> Cc: public-wai-evaltf@w3.org<mailto:public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Not Applicable (was Re: Evaluation scheme with three
>>>>>>> ptions  - proposal)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks for the explanation, Shadi. I imagine it took some 
>>>>>>> discussion
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> reach that consensus!  :^)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mike
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2/20/2012 2:30 PM, Shadi Abou-Zahra wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi Mike,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Good question. We had a long discussion about that and also asked
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> WCAG Working Group on their position on this.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> According to WCAG WG, the term "Not Applicable" is not defined and
>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>> ambiguous. Accessibility requirements are deemed met when the
>>>>>> content
>>>>>>>> does not require specific accessibility features. For example, the
>>>>>>>> requirement for captioning is deemed met if there is no video
>>>>>> content.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I will try dig out the corresponding pointers but I recall that 
>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>> was something that was less clearly documented in the WCAG
>>>>>> documents.
>>>>>>>> We will probably need to clarify this point somewhere in section 5
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> the Methodology, and possibly as WCAG WG to also clarify some of
>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>> materials (so that we can refer to it from our explanation).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>      Shadi
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 20.2.2012 19:26, Michael S Elledge wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 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<mailto: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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>

-- 
Michael S. Elledge
Associate Director
Usability/Accessibility Research and Consulting
Michigan State University
Kellogg Center
219 S. Harrison Rd Room 93
East Lansing, MI  48824
517-353-8977
Received on Wednesday, 7 March 2012 22:20:57 GMT

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