RE: ERT WG: Agenda for teleconference on Wednesday 14 March 2012

Hi Shadi, all:

Sorry for not having been able to actively participate in today's
conference, I've had some equipment problems. Regarding the evaluation
methodology document, my comments follow:

- Sections 1.4 and 2.1: It is not clear enough if and how a website is
different from its traditional meaning (a single web "realm"). As far as I
understand, a web page is defined from the user-experience point of view,
and so is a "web site" (acknowledging the requirement for "complete
processes"). That is, e.g. a mashup of contents extracted from different
providers, maybe even retrieved from different hosts at different domains,
is a single web page at a single web site, although it is not under control
of the web site administrator (that's why partial conformance was created).
Besides, even when the user moves from one page to another, a payment
gateway page put in an online shopping process, would be part of the same
website. Current writing gives some hints for that, but I think it should be
more explicitly clarified in the document.

- Section 2.5: I would add the phrase between brackets in this sentence "it
is strongly recommended to involve real people [covering a wide range of
capabilities] during the evaluation process." It is perfectly explained in
the linked documentation, but it should be also made clear here: the basis
does not rely on "having people with disabilities", but on having diverse
user profiles, that should cover users with and without different functional
capabilities.

- Step 1.e, it should be mentioned that the techniques chosen should be
coherent with the technologies used on the website (e.g. if Flash is used,
Flash techniques are included, etc.) 

- Step 2.d should go before 2.c. The technologies used in the website should
be identified before web pages depending on the technologies they use.
Besides, "technology" should not only refer to base technologies (e.g.
Javascript, WAI-ARIA), but also to any concrete component that is reused in
the website (e.g. jQuery, dojo).

- Step 3.b. Some further references would be useful. It is always a headache
to find out how representative a sample of web pages is in practice,
especially in large websites. Typically, sites with a lot of traffic get
more refined sampling, and those are usually the most complex as well. "At
least two" is a rule of thumb to start with, but it should not be the same
if we talk about a 20-page or a 2-million-page website with hundreds of
styles. Maybe this document is not responsible to answer this question, but
it would be nice if it could include some pointers.

- Step 5 (all substeps): There is a typo in the titles for the editor notes:
they read "Editore" instead of "Editor".

- Step 5.c. A performance score could also be available for "Basic
Conformance"  (although it would be a quite simple, boolean score), not only
for "Detailed Review".

- One of steps 5.b to 5.f should be required, even though each is
individually optional. That is, an evaluation should include at least one
of: an accessibility statement, a performance score, information on the
findings, suggestions for repairs or a machine-readable report.

- Section 5: Limitations. I would also add that this methodology is mainly
oriented to evaluate web sites under a coherent control... Sorry for the
wording, maybe I'll explain myself showing what it does not (fully) cover.
Some rich web applications allow visualizing different documents or content
instances. Conformance with WCAG 2.0 may be assessed using this methodology,
but it would not be a comprehensive evaluation, as the web application would
also need to be subject to ATAG. Likewise, some rich web applications allow
users ("prosumers", as they are both producers and consumers) create and
publish their own content. These applications should be subject in addition
to UAAG.

- Appendix C. The three templates should not be named as "Options" but as
"Examples". Otherwise, it might seem they are mutually exclusive choices.

- Option 1: global/regional may be a misleading wording that seems to be
related to localization, instead of website parts.

Regards,

Samuel.


> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: Shadi Abou-Zahra [mailto:shadi@w3.org]
> Enviado el: martes, 13 de marzo de 2012 22:04
> Para: ERT WG
> Asunto: ERT WG: Agenda for teleconference on Wednesday 14 March 2012
> 
> ERT WG,
> 
> The next teleconference is scheduled for Wednesday 14 March 2012 at:
>   * 14:30 to 15:30 Central European Time (CET)
>   * 09:30 to 10:30 North American Eastern Time (ET)
>   * 06:30 to 07:30 North American Pacific Time (PT)
> 
> Please check the World Clock Meeting Planner to find out the precise
> date for your own time zone:
>   - <http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/meeting.html>
> 
> The teleconference information is: (Passcode 3794 - "ERWG")
>   * +1.617.761.6200
>   * SIP / VoIP - http://www.w3.org/2006/tools/wiki/Zakim-SIP
> 
> We also use IRC to support the meeting: (http://irc.w3.org)
>   * IRC server: irc.w3.org
>   * port: 6665
>   * channel: #er
> 
> 
> AGENDA:
> 
> #1. Welcome
> 
> 
> #2. Website Accessibility Conformance Evaluation Methodology 1.0
>   - approval as First Public Working Draft (FPWD)
>   - <http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20120306>
> 
> 
> #3. EARL 1.0 Test Suite
>   - status check on test suite development
>   - <http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/EARL10/tests/>
> 
> 
> #4. Next Meeting
> 
> 
> Regards,
>    Shadi
> 
> --
> Shadi Abou-Zahra - http://www.w3.org/People/shadi/ Activity Lead,
> W3C/WAI International Program Office Evaluation and Repair Tools
> Working Group (ERT WG) Research and Development Working Group (RDWG)

Received on Wednesday, 14 March 2012 15:26:30 UTC