RE: WCAG-EM Report Tool

HI Shadi

My concern when we were working on the WCAG-EM is that when preparing a
report and stating how many of the SC pass or fail from the page sample, it
can give a false impression of the website to say how many SC record pass
when there isn't content present for many of the criteria.  For example if
the page was really static with no multimedia, forms, etc. they would seem
much more accessible, which I guess they are, but it makes them look
superior in any scoring - hope that mess makes sense.

The Understanding Conformance link
(http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/conformance.html) says that "This
means that if there is no content to which a success criterion applies, the
success criterion is satisfied".  In our reporting, we have decided to
record it as a pass in our desire to use the WCAG-EM and comply with this
WCAG Understanding statement, but to put in another column which records
that it is 'not present'.  That way we are advising the client why they pass
that particular criterion.

Does that make sense?

Regards,

Vivienne Conway, B.IT (Hons), MACS CT, AALIA(CS)
Director

Web Key IT Pty Ltd
PO BOX 681 Wanneroo, WA 6946
M    0415 383 673   F   (08) 9325 6422

E      v.conway@webkeyit.com
W    www.webkeyit.com 




This communication, including any attachments, is intended solely for the
named addressee. It is confidential and may be subject to legal professional
privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact me
immediately by reply email, delete it from your system and destroy any
copies. This email is subject to copyright, no part of it should be
reproduced, adapted or transmitted without the prior written consent of the
copyright owner. Any views expressed in this message are those of the
individual sender and may not necessarily reflect the views of Web Key IT
Pty Ltd.

-----Original Message-----
From: Shadi Abou-Zahra [mailto:shadi@w3.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, 12 August 2014 5:13 PM
To: WebKeyIT; 'Eval TF'
Cc: 'Wilco Fiers'
Subject: Re: WCAG-EM Report Tool

Hi Vivienne,

Not sure what you mean. In principle WCAG 2.0 only knows pass and fail for
Success Criteria. After long discussion with WCAG WG we agreed on "not
present" to denote pass (satisfied) due to "no relevant content". 
Please see the note at the end of this section:
  - http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-EM/#success-criteria

Best,
   Shadi


On 12.8.2014 08:53, WebKeyIT wrote:
> Hi Shadi
>
> I thought that WCAG-EM was pretty clear that it could only be a pass 
> or fail in accordance with the Conformance Requirements statement of WCAG
2.0 :
> http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#conformance-reqs:
>
>
>
> What does conformance mean?
>
> Conformance to a standard means that you meet or satisfy the
'requirements'
> of the standard. In WCAG 2.0 the 'requirements' are the Success 
> Criteria. To conform to WCAG 2.0, you need to satisfy the Success 
> Criteria, that is, there is no content which violates the Success
Criteria.
>
>
> Note: This means that if there is no content to which a success 
> criterion applies, the success criterion is satisfied.
>
> Most standards only have one level of conformance. In order to 
> accommodate different situations that may require or allow greater 
> levels of accessibility than others, WCAG 2.0 has three levels of 
> conformance, and therefore, three levels of Success Criteria.
>
>
>
>
> That is why we have had to change our reporting and its something we 
> argued back and forth with the group.  I agree with the idea (as did 
> Detlev and
> others) that if it isn't there, how can it pass, but the above is 
> pretty clear.  That it is isn't there, it is a pass.
>
> Regards,
>
> Vivienne Conway, B.IT (Hons), MACS CT, AALIA(CS) Director
>
> Web Key IT Pty Ltd
> PO BOX 681 Wanneroo, WA 6946
> M    0415 383 673   F   (08) 9325 6422
>
> E      v.conway@webkeyit.com
> W    www.webkeyit.com
>
>
>
>
> This communication, including any attachments, is intended solely for 
> the named addressee. It is confidential and may be subject to legal 
> professional privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, please 
> contact me immediately by reply email, delete it from your system and 
> destroy any copies. This email is subject to copyright, no part of it 
> should be reproduced, adapted or transmitted without the prior written 
> consent of the copyright owner. Any views expressed in this message 
> are those of the individual sender and may not necessarily reflect the 
> views of Web Key IT Pty Ltd.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Shadi Abou-Zahra [mailto:shadi@w3.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, 12 August 2014 2:18 PM
> To: WebKeyIT; 'Eval TF'
> Cc: 'Wilco Fiers'
> Subject: Re: WCAG-EM Report Tool
>
> Hi Vivienne,
>
> Good point. I think we need to change "inapplicable" to "not present" 
> to match WCAG-EM terminology, and remove "cannot tell" from the list. 
> Note that "untested" is not really a result. Maybe we should rename 
> that to "not checked" or such to make it more apparent.
>
> Thanks,
>     Shadi
>
>
> On 12.8.2014 04:31, WebKeyIT wrote:
>> HI Shadi
>>
>> In looking over the document, I see that one of the issues we faced 
>> with WCAG-EM is a problem here.  In the Audit Sample Tag (4), in the 
>> dropdown box for the 'results for the entire sample", there are 
>> options
> for:
>> - untested
>> - fail
>> -pass
>> -cannot tell
>> -inapplicable
>>
>> We agreed in WCAG-EM that because WCAG does not allow anything except 
>> true/false, pass/fail that we could not allow these extra items into 
>> the report and still be able to say that WCAG-EM was used for the
> evaluation.
>> This is something we have just gone through own reporting and removed 
>> as we
>> had:
>> -pass
>> -fail
>> -conditional pass (just for somethings that were small and not 
>> technically a
>> failure)
>> - n/a (for items not there such as multimedia)
>> - nt (not tested) for items such as interruptions we could not be 
>> tested without access to onsite resources
>>
>> I would suggest that as we had to adjust WCAG-EM for just pass/fail, 
>> that this should also be changed in the WCAG-EM Reporter to be
consistent.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Vivienne Conway, B.IT (Hons), MACS CT, AALIA(CS) Director
>>
>> Web Key IT Pty Ltd
>> PO BOX 681 Wanneroo, WA 6946
>> M    0415 383 673   F   (08) 9325 6422
>>
>> E      v.conway@webkeyit.com
>> W    www.webkeyit.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> This communication, including any attachments, is intended solely for 
>> the named addressee. It is confidential and may be subject to legal 
>> professional privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, please 
>> contact me immediately by reply email, delete it from your system and 
>> destroy any copies. This email is subject to copyright, no part of it 
>> should be reproduced, adapted or transmitted without the prior 
>> written consent of the copyright owner. Any views expressed in this 
>> message are those of the individual sender and may not necessarily 
>> reflect the views of Web Key IT Pty Ltd.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Shadi Abou-Zahra [mailto:shadi@w3.org]
>> Sent: Thursday, 31 July 2014 9:51 PM
>> To: Eval TF
>> Cc: Wilco Fiers
>> Subject: WCAG-EM Report Tool
>>
>> Dear Eval TF,
>>
>> You may be interested to know about the "WCAG-EM Report Tool"
>> currently being developed through the Education and Outreach Working 
>> Group
> (EOWG):
>>     - http://w3c.github.io/wcag-em-report-tool/dist/
>>
>> This tool is currently an early prototype but we welcome your 
>> comments at this stage already. Please send comments to this list or 
>> preferably add them directly to the issues list on GitHub:
>>     - https://github.com/w3c/wcag-em-report-tool/issues
>>
>> Let us know if you have any questions.
>>
>> Regards,
>>      Shadi
>>
>> --
>> 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)
>>
>>
>
> --
> 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)
>
>

--
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 Tuesday, 12 August 2014 12:30:29 UTC