[draft #2] updated review process workflow


As per our recent teleconference discussion, please find attached an 
updated workflow chart for the review process. Find also below the 
stages and steps in this workflow:

Stage 1: Submission
  - An author submits a new test sample (1), or an updated test sample 
(9). Currently the submission works manually through the Task Force 
participants but in the future it may work through a Web interface.

Stage 2: Structure Review
  - Currently the structure review is carried out manually but in the 
future it will be assisted by scripts, or ideally fully automated. The 
structure review can already show significant issues, in which case the 
submission is rejected and sent back to the author (3b).

Stage 3: Content Review
  - Content reviews are recorded in the Wiki. Each test sample could 
have multiple content reviews: one when it is reviewed for the first 
time (3a), and then additional ones if it is updated at a later point (8).

Stage 4: Online Strawpoll
  - The rest of the Task Force participants have the opportunity to vote 
on the test sample, this is done using the W3C online balloting system.

Stage 5: Task Force Decision
  - Based on the most current content review, the online strawpoll, and 
any additional discussion during the teleconference, the Task Force 
makes one of the following decisions on how to proceed:
   #6a. the test sample is accepted as-is and queued for WCAG WG to 
process at a later point in time
   #6b. minor improvements are made to the test sample, then it is added 
to the same queue for WCAG WG
   #6c. more improvements are required, and the test sample needs to be 
re-reviewed (see question below)
   #6d. the test sample is rejected and the author of the test sample 
needs to re-submit it anew
   #6e. the test sample demonstrates and issue in the WCAG Techniques, 
and is put on a separate queue for WCAG WG to process

- It is unclear if the "moderate improvements" are to be made by the 
author of the test sample or by the Task Force participants. Also a 
combination of these approaches may be possible. We need to decide and 
document how this step is handled.


Shadi Abou-Zahra     Web Accessibility Specialist for Europe |
Chair & Staff Contact for the Evaluation and Repair Tools WG |
World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)           http://www.w3.org/ |
Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI),   http://www.w3.org/WAI/ |
WAI-TIES Project,                http://www.w3.org/WAI/TIES/ |
Evaluation and Repair Tools WG,    http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/ |
2004, Route des Lucioles - 06560,  Sophia-Antipolis - France |
Voice: +33(0)4 92 38 50 64          Fax: +33(0)4 92 38 78 22 |

Received on Tuesday, 24 April 2007 13:32:37 UTC