W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > January to March 2012

Re: Who can say that a web page is accessible according to wcag?

From: Marcelo Piazza <mafagafo.mor@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2012 03:08:03 -0300
Message-ID: <4F029B43.3060102@gmail.com>
To: mpiazza@ig.com.br
CC: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Hello all. Once again, thanks for your replies.

I'd like to apologize for this big post.

I have some new questions, so a I'll need your help again.

*Shawn*: I used the evaluation tools and, of course, they can't cover 
all success criteria. I think these tools are using the techniques 
described by WAI, right? I'll need help from someone with visual 
impairment who can test my application to say me how accessible it is, 
preferably according to WCAG 2.0.
Without using these techniques as parameters, how can I say that my 
application is accessible according to WCAG 2.0? I read the page 
"Involving Users in Evaluating Web Accessibility" and I'm not sure how 
to put it into practice.

*Mike*: To develop this application, was necessary to write a document 
called "Use Case", that describes the steps a user must follow to 
complete a task. It's possible to verify if the person can complete the 
task according to this document. I think I can use this approach 
combined with some tool (like a checklist) to check the application 
accessibility level (or something near this).

*Fernandes*: I believe the content design is best covered by WCAG than 
the semantic question, however it seems to me they have objective 
criteria that allow some kind of evaluation conformance (although the 
evaluation of the test results can be subjective).

*Devarshi*: As a said before, the evaluation of test results can be 
subjective to the software designer. To test my application, I selected 
a task (for exemple "User Login", as described at this address: 
http://www.welie.com/patterns/showPattern.php?patternID=login) and 
started the application. After the page is loaded, I picked a Level A 
Sucess Criteria and its Sufficient Techniques 
(http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/quickref/Overview.php). For each 
technique, if it can be applied to the task and to the user interface 
then I check it:

/Exemple:
Task: User Login
Success Criteria: Meaningful Sequence
Sufficente Technique: G57: Ordering the content in a meaningful sequence 
(http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20101014/G57)
Test Procedure (described by the technique):
     1. Linearize content using a standard approach for the technology 
(e.g., removing layout styles or running a linearization tool)
     2. Check to see if the order of content yields the same meaning as 
the original
Expected Results
     - Check #2 is true.
Remarks: its a Login page, so it needs the Username and the Password 
fields, and a Confirm button, in this order. Other elements can be present.
Results: the styles were removed and the order of content yields the 
same meaning as the original./

This procedure is time consuming and is not ease, especially for a 
visual impaired person, but I still think it is valid procedure to check 
if the sucess criteria can be met.

*Rohra*: To be precise, I'm developing a "software component framewok", 
not an application. I intend to produce a framework wich contains 
accessible components to be used in a e-commerce application. My master 
thesis is based on the proccess to develop these components. I assume as 
premise that is possible to produce accessible components from "software 
interaction patterns" and "accessibility guidelines".

At this time I have a issue: the software designer can check the 
accessibility WCAG criteria and automated tools can be used to aid this 
proccess. But, from the user's perspective, are these components accessible?

I think a checklist could be used during an accessibility test with a 
person with visual impairment. Actually, last week I found a brazilian 
government document that uses a checklist to evaluate e-gov sites. This 
checklist was developed by brazilian researchers and is based on the the 
regional accessibility model.

Some exemples of these checklist items:
/- All images related to content are described by means of "alt" 
attribute? (Yes, No, Partially, Not Applicable). User remarks.
- Image buttons are described by means of "alt" attribute? (Yes, No, 
Partially, Not Applicable). User remarks.
- Does the interface has a Sitemap? (Yes, No, Partially, Not 
Applicable). User remarks.
- When using forms the read order with screen reader is the same that 
appears on the screen? (Yes, No, Partially, Not Applicable). User remarks.
... and so on.../

Maybe it's possible to adapt this checklist to be used by a PWD.

*Finally, *could someone here help me to test my software application?

Thank you very much and happy new year!

Marcelo Alberto Piazza


Em 25/12/2011 23:09, Marcelo Piazza escreveu:
> Hello again!
>
> I'd like to thank everyone who replied my previous message.
>
> Now I have another question.
>
> I applied the tests existing in the W3 techniques to my software 
> application.
>
> But how can I apply these tests to my application aided by a person 
> with disabilities? Is there a checklist that helps this procedure? I 
> think the W3 tests are very extensive to be executed by person with 
> disabilities.
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Marcelo Alberto Piazza
>
>
> Em 12/12/2011 04:07, Marcelo Piazza escreveu:
>> Hello all!
>>
>> I'm writing a master thesis about e-commerce and accessibility.
>>
>> At this moment I need to evaluate a set of pages and assure that they 
>> are accessible according to WCAG 2.0 level A with sufficient 
>> techniques only (http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/quickref/).
>>
>> I found some tools show me accessibility errors (Wave, Total 
>> Validator, Juicy, FAE, AChecker), but none of them says that a page 
>> conforms to certain accessibility level.
>>
>> So I have two questions:
>>
>> - How can I say that a site (or a web page) does really conforms to 
>> WCAG 2.0?
>>
>> - Does exist a tool or an institution that evaluates a site and 
>> assures some kind of conformance to accessibility requirements (like 
>> wcag)?
>>
>> Thank you!
>> Marcelo Alberto Piazza
>
Received on Tuesday, 3 January 2012 05:08:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 January 2012 05:08:40 GMT