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

Re: AW: evaluating web applications (was Re: Canadian Treasury Board accessibility assessment methodology)

From: <detlev.fischer@testkreis.de>
Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 09:56:35 +0200 (CEST)
To: k.probiesch@googlemail.com,peter.korn@oracle.com,shadi@w3.org
Cc: public-wai-evaltf@w3.org
Message-Id: <20120523075635.F35E52366093@dd24924.kasserver.com>
Hi all, 

Perhaps not surprisingly for those who have followed these discussions since summer last year, I disagree with Kerstin's statement "the more granualar the evaluation, the less reliable it is". 

The binary approach produces artefacts because it often forces evalutors to be either too strict (failing a SC due to minor issues) or too lenient (attesting conformance in spite of such issues).

We've tried to show the higher fidelity of a graded evaluation approch in our recent paper for the Website Accessibility Metrics Online Symposium 5 December 2011:

http://www.w3.org/WAI/RD/2011/metrics/paper7/


> Hi Peter, Shadi,
> 
> if we would work out "something that is different" from the pass/fail which
> obviously is not compliant with the conformance requirements it wouldn't be
> an evaluation methodology for WCAG 2.0 anymore. Of course: part of reality
> is imperfect software. Part of reality are also "imperfect" developers and
> "imperfect" online editors. The question for me is: if we consider these
> aspects why then promote for example ATAG? Another problem for me is: the
> more granular evaluations are the less reliable they will be.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Kerstin
> 
> 
> 
> Von: Peter Korn [mailto:peter.korn@oracle.com] 
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 22. Mai 2012 23:24
> An: Shadi Abou-Zahra
> Cc: Eval TF
> Betreff: Re: evaluating web applications (was Re: Canadian Treasury Board
> accessibility assessment methodology)
> 
> Shadi,
> 
> I don't believe one can make an effective, useful, meaningful conformance
> claim about many classes of web applications today.  That class includes
> things like web mail, and many kinds of portal applications (particularly
> where they only employ a single URI).
> 
> I do believe it will be possible to evaluate web applications for
> accessibility - similar to evaluating non-web applications for accessibility
> - but I expect we will need to do something that is different from the
> binary "perfection"/"imperfection" of the current conformance claim rubric. 
> The Canadian Treasury Board example takes a step along that path in shifting
> from one binary "perfection"/"imperfection" statement to a two tiered,
> percentage collection of 38 binary "perfection"/"imperfection" statements. 
> But we need to go further than that.
> 
> I think the components of such a successful evaluation will need to:
> • Recognize (as EvalTF is already doing) that only a sampling/subset of
> everything that a user can encounter can be effectively evaluated in a
> finite and reasonable amount of time
> • Provide greater granularity in the evaluation reporting - one that is
> designed to accommodate the reality of imperfect software while nonetheless
> providing useful information to those consuming the evaluation report such
> that they can make informed decisions based on it
> • Incorporate the concepts (as EvalTF is starting to do) of uses (or use
> cases) of the application so that the evaluation is meaningful in the
> context of how the web application will be used
> 
> I am eager to get further into these discussions in EvalTF, some of which
> may be logical things to discuss as we review feedback from the public draft
> (including some of the Oracle feedback... :-).  And as I mentioned, we've
> already started exploring some of this already.
> 
> 
> Peter
> 
> 
> On 5/22/2012 2:09 PM, Shadi Abou-Zahra wrote: 
> Hi Peter, 
> 
> Does that mean that web applications cannot be evaluated? 
> 
> Best, 
>   Shadi 
> 
> 
> On 22.5.2012 20:40, Peter Korn wrote: 
> 
> Shadi, 
> 
> As is clear from the Notes&  Examples under their definition of "Web page"
> at 
> the bottom of the URL you circulated (below), it is clear they are looking
> to 
> assess on a Pass/Fail basis the full complexity of web applications. As
> we've 
> explored in recent EvalTF meetings, that is a very challenging thing to do, 
> given how dynamic web applications can be (cf. their examples of a "Web mail
> 
> program" and a "customizable portal site"). It is challenging in normal
> software 
> testing to determine whether you have reached every possible code path& 
> every 
> possible configuration of the structure behind a single URI, let alone
> answer 
> Pass/Fail for each and every WCAG A/AA SC for those. 
> 
> 
> Regards, 
> 
> Peter 
> 
> On 5/22/2012 6:10 AM, Shadi Abou-Zahra wrote: 
> 
>  Dear Group, 
> 
>  Ref:<http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/ws-nw/wa-aw/wa-aw-assess-methd-eng.asp> 
> 
>  David MacDonald pointed out the accessibility assessment methodology of the
> 
>  Canadian Treasury Board, in particular the scoring they use. 
> 
>  Best, 
>  Shadi 
> 
> -- 
> Oracle<http://www.oracle.com> 
> Peter Korn | Accessibility Principal 
> Phone: +1 650 506 9522<tel:+1%20650%20506%209522> 
> Oracle Corporate Architecture Group 
> 500 Oracle Parkway | Redwood City, CA 94065 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---- 
> Note: @sun.com e-mail addresses will shortly no longer function; be sure to
> use: 
> peter.korn@oracle.com to reach me 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---- 
> Green Oracle<http://www.oracle.com/commitment>  Oracle is committed to 
> developing practices and products that help protect the environment 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> Peter Korn | Accessibility Principal
> Phone: +1 650 506 9522 
> Oracle Corporate Architecture Group
> 500 Oracle Parkway | Redwood City, CA 94065 
> ________________________________________
> Note: @sun.com e-mail addresses will shortly no longer function; be sure to
> use: peter.korn@oracle.com to reach me 
> ________________________________________
> Oracle is committed to developing practices and products that help protect
> the environment 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 23 May 2012 07:57:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:52:14 GMT