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

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

From: Kerstin Probiesch <k.probiesch@googlemail.com>
Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 10:09:44 +0200
To: <detlev.fischer@testkreis.de>, <peter.korn@oracle.com>, <shadi@w3.org>
Cc: <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
Message-ID: <4fbc9b06.4166b40a.79e9.534f@mx.google.com>
Hi Detlev,

in the mentioned paper for the Website Accessibility Metrics Online Symposium is written: " Our experience shows that the 5 point graded rating scale is quite reliable." I think it would be helpful for the discussion to know what "quite reliable" exactly means (the value for the reliability coefficient).

Best

Kerstin

> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: detlev.fischer@testkreis.de [mailto:detlev.fischer@testkreis.de]
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 23. Mai 2012 09:57
> An: k.probiesch@googlemail.com; peter.korn@oracle.com; shadi@w3.org
> Cc: public-wai-evaltf@w3.org
> Betreff: Re: AW: evaluating web applications (was Re: Canadian Treasury
> Board accessibility assessment methodology)
> 
> 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 08:09:34 GMT

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