W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-au@w3.org > April to June 2002

The Evaluation Techniques Strike Back

From: Jan Richards <jan.richards@utoronto.ca>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 17:20:22 -0400
Message-ID: <3CF3F496.4CC77D5C@utoronto.ca>
To: "w3c-wai-au@w3.org" <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
Hi all,

It seems that the ATAG evaluation techniques are always on the agenda,
but for some reason, we never quite get to them. As we put together an
agenda for the Austria F2F, perhaps we should return to the subject and
survey the numerous outstanding issues (which I will be placing in an
issues page - linked from a new Evaluation Techniques sub-section on the
AU homepage).

As I see it, we need to come to a consensus on the following:

1. Do we want the evaluation techniques to be a step-by-step procedure
for people who are not familiar with ATAG? (i.e. "Open the file supplied
and then perform X. If you see Y happen then the tool passes, if Z then
it fails.")  Or will the evaluation techniques be intended to support
evaluations by people familiar with ATAG (i.e. "Here are some things to
keep in mind when assessing X in the tool")? - Either way, how can we
avoid specifying things at the level of markup (which is best left to
WCAG's whenever possible)? In other words, will we have to have a
different set of tests for HTML, SVG?

2. How will we take into account all the different kinds of tools? Will
we break the evaluation techniques into groups by ATAG checkpoint? Will
we end up with something like the AERT but with different tool types
rather than different markup languages.?

3. What will be the relationship be between the evaluation techniques
and the implementation techniques? If we include implementation
specifics in the tests (i.e. "To assess whether highlighting has been
used in the dialog check whether any options are highlighted by ordering
or color.") how will we avoid this being seen as limiting the creative
flexibility of developers and becoming the de facto prescriptive
requirements? 

4. How can we support evaluation of checkpoints dealing with accessible
output (for WCAG P1, P2 and P3) when checking tools are not up to the
task yet? How much testing of output is sufficient?

5. How can we support checking of the accessibility interface
checkpoints in guideline 7? Will we provide pointers to platform
specific standards, "rules of thumb" for checking interfaces, etc.

6. How should we use the QA work
(http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-qaframe-spec-20020515/)


Answers? More questions? Comments?

-- 
Cheers,
Jan

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\

Jan Richards
UI Design Specialist
Adaptive Technology Resource Centre (ATRC)
University of Toronto

jan.richards@utoronto.ca
Phone: (416) 946-7060
Fax: (416) 971-2896

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Received on Tuesday, 28 May 2002 17:20:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 22 September 2008 15:53:01 GMT