W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wai-rd@w3.org > October 2011

RE: Accessibility evaluation methodology

From: Vivienne CONWAY <v.conway@ecu.edu.au>
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 19:47:57 +0800
To: Denis Boudreau <dboudreau@accessibiliteweb.com>, Léonie Watson <lwatson@nomensa.com>
CC: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>, "public-wai-rd@w3.org" <public-wai-rd@w3.org>, Eval TF <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
Message-ID: <8AFA77741B11DB47B24131F1E38227A9914FAED33D@XCHG-MS1.ads.ecu.edu.au>
HI Denis and all TF

Yes, I have a feeling many of us conduct our evaluations in much the same way.  For my research, I am:
running 2 automated over all or a large number of pages
doing a manual evaluation for 5 pages with as many of the criteria as possible and going through all the WCAG 2.0 points and scoring 1 point for each valuation.  I also use a group of users with a variety of disabilities who are expert testers.

For my research, I am doing these tests continually, comparing the results over a 2 year time-period.


Regards

Vivienne L. Conway
________________________________________
From: public-wai-evaltf-request@w3.org [public-wai-evaltf-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Denis Boudreau [dboudreau@accessibiliteweb.com]
Sent: Saturday, 22 October 2011 5:58 AM
To: Léonie Watson
Cc: Shadi Abou-Zahra; public-wai-rd@w3.org; Eval TF
Subject: Re: Accessibility evaluation methodology

Hi all,

We face the same situation Léonie faces at Nomensa. Maybe it would be a good opportunity to work together and come up with something that would represent how we run our evaluations. I'm pretty sure it would be very similar.

Léonie and I have been talking about this for a while, maybe this is a good opportunity to do so. Others could want to jump in as well...

/Denis



On 2011-10-21, at 3:44 AM, Léonie Watson wrote:

>       No, it isn't documented publicly. It's probably fairly typical of the methodology used by agencies to carry out accessibility evaluations, but it isn't formalised in a central place as far as I know.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Regards,
> Léonie.
>
> --
> Nomensa - humanising technology
>
> Léonie Watson, Director of Accessibility & Web Development
>
> tel: +44 (0)117 929 7333
> twitter: @we_are_Nomensa @LeonieWatson
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Shadi Abou-Zahra [mailto:shadi@w3.org]
> Sent: 20 October 2011 13:41
> To: Léonie Watson
> Cc: public-wai-rd@w3.org; Eval TF
> Subject: Re: Accessibility evaluation methodology
>
> Hi Leonie,
>
> Is this methodology documented publicly?
>
> The idea is not to document organizations that carry out evaluations but rather existing, publicly documented methodologies to learn from.
>
> I will clarify the wiki page accordingly.
>
> Thanks,
>   Shadi
>
>
> On 20.10.2011 12:26, Léonie Watson wrote:
>> Good morning,
>>
>>      In response to Shadi's request for one/two sentence descriptions of accessibility evaluation methodologies:
>>
>>      Nomensa manually evaluates a representative sample of pages against the full set of WCAG success criteria, and uses automated tools to evaluate a large sample of pages against a subset of WCAG success criteria. We also carry out an holistic evaluation of the site from the perspective of people with different disabilities/assistive technology requirements.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Léonie.
>>
>> --
>> Nomensa - humanising technology
>>
>> Léonie Watson, Director of Accessibility&  Web Development
>>
>> tel: +44 (0)117 929 7333
>> twitter: @we_are_Nomensa @LeonieWatson
>>
>> Nomensa Email Disclaimer: http://www.nomensa.com/email-disclaimer
>>
>> © Nomensa Ltd, King William House, 13 Queen Square, Bristol BS1 4NT UK
>> VAT registration: GB 771727411 | Company number: 4214477
>>
>>
>
> --
> 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)
>

This e-mail is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient you must not disclose or use the information contained within. If you have received it in error please return it to the sender via reply e-mail and delete any record of it from your system. The information contained within is not the opinion of Edith Cowan University in general and the University accepts no liability for the accuracy of the information provided.

CRICOS IPC 00279B
Received on Tuesday, 25 October 2011 11:52:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 25 October 2011 11:52:36 GMT