W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-eo@w3.org > October to December 2009

Re: WAB cluster and WAI (was Success criteria not applicable)

From: Alan Chuter <achuter@technosite.es>
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2009 13:48:57 +0200
Message-ID: <4AC9DD29.4080400@technosite.es>
To: wloughborough@gmail.com
CC: WCAG WG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, EOWG <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>
I think you're missing the point. I only mention UWEM as a publicly 
available example of what goes into evaluation reports every day around 
the world.

 > In other words is there some separate "European
 > methodology" that is distinct from that used by Shadi and other BAD
 > editors?
It only covers WCAG 1.0 so it does not apply.

 > I believe this is the first time I've noticed any inclusion of their
 > efforts/concerns in EOWG and wonder how this relates to the overall
 > goal of "harmonis(z)ation"?
It was done at the behest of the European Commission's Information 
Society Technologies Programme, which also sponsors WAI, and makes 
possible the WAI-AGE project and thus the BAD.

The WAB cluster projects completed their work some time ago now. They 
were charged by the European Commission to produce a methodology to 
harmonize interpretation of WCAG 1.0. WAI reviewed the deliverables.

cheers,

Alan


William Loughborough escribió:
> The "WAB Cluster" at <http://www.wabcluster.org/index.html> describes
> itself as "A cluster of European projects to develop a harmonized
> European methodology for evaluation and benchmarking of websites" and
> "...quality of the methodology, including its validation,
> participation of relevant stakeholders, support from and possible
> endorsement by or inclusion of comments from W3C/WAI, will be
> essential for a subsequent European-wide acceptation. When possible
> work for the cluster will be closely coordinated or take place inside
> WAI Working Groups (e.g. WCAG WG, ERT and EOWG)."
> 
> I believe this is the first time I've noticed any inclusion of their
> efforts/concerns in EOWG and wonder how this relates to the overall
> goal of "harmonis(z)ation"? Are we going to need a pair (at least) of
> evaluation criteria? In other words is there some separate "European
> methodology" that is distinct from that used by Shadi and other BAD
> editors? Is there any way to "harmonis(z)e various harmoniz(s)ations"
> or are we going to have arrays of rules made distinct, sort of i18n's
> own Tower of Babel?
> 
> Perhaps I'm suffering a years-long "senior moment" but I don't recall
> being asked to provide "inclusion of comments...for a subsequent
> European-wide acceptation" or had any work for the cluster show up on
> our agendas.
> 
> Love.
> 
> On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 12:21 AM, Alan Chuter <achuter@technosite.es> wrote:
> < Accessibility evaluation reports may flag a success
> < criterion or checkpoint as not applicable when...
> <
> < It might be useful guidance to make this explicit in the BAD reports, but
> < even more, the WCAG WG could give its opinion to make clear when a success
> < criterion can be flagged as "not applicable" in a conformance report.
> 
> 


-- 
Alan Chuter
Departamento de Usabilidad y Accesibilidad
Consultor
Technosite - Grupo Fundosa
Fundación ONCE
Tfno.: 91 121 03 30
Fax: 91 375 70 51
achuter@technosite.es
http://www.technosite.es
Received on Monday, 5 October 2009 11:53:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 10:33:56 GMT