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

Re: The Evaluation Techniques Strike Back

From: Jan Richards <jan.richards@utoronto.ca>
Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 10:48:32 -0400
Message-ID: <3CF4EA40.DDFE30D3@utoronto.ca>
To: "w3c-wai-au@w3.org" <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>

Wendy A Chisholm wrote:
> I don't have any answers, but glad you are asking these questions.  Another
> thing to take into consideration is the work on WCAG 2.0. [1]  WCAG 2.0 has
> "success criteria" for each checkpoint - these are supposed to be testable.

At this point the evaluation techniques are for ATAG 1.0, which
references only WCAG 1.0. Once WCAG 2.0 is released, a new version of
ATAG can be published that refers to the new version of WCAG. Only then
we will be able to update the ATAG implementation techniques and ATAG
evaluation techniques documents to take advantage of all the advances in
WCAG 2.0, including the "success criteria".

> The Techniques documents will have more testable criteria that look more
> like the AERT. [2]
> Therefore, if WCAG provides what should be produced, ATAG should provide
> how to help the author get it there....not a new idea....just restating it
> FYI.  This follows along what we discussed last June in Amsterdam [3].



> At 05:20 PM 5/28/02, Jan Richards wrote:
> >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
> >
> >/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
> --
> wendy a chisholm
> world wide web consortium
> web accessibility initiative
> seattle, wa usa
> /--


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

Phone: (416) 946-7060
Fax: (416) 971-2896

Received on Wednesday, 29 May 2002 10:49:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:39:47 UTC