- From: Wilco Fiers <w.fiers@accessibility.nl>
- Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2011 11:27:19 +0100
- To: "Velleman, Eric" <evelleman@bartimeus.nl>, Martijn Houtepen <m.houtepen@accessibility.nl>, Alistair Garrison <alistair.j.garrison@gmail.com>, Eval TF <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>, KerstinProbiesch <k.probiesch@googlemail.com>
Hey Eric / all, I think the question might actually answer it's self. Since the scope of the evaluation is a complete websites (we decided the methodology was to evaluate websites, not just parts of a website), if a process is part of the website, then therefore it should be included in the scope of the evaluation. I'm a big fan of using the strictest interpretation of the definition of process. Which it seems to me has two parts to it, first of is that there is a required action. Some very specific thing must occure, such as submiting a specific for, or activating a specific link or button (note that I'm not saying clicking it, because there are other ways to activate a link). Secondly, something is only a process if there is more then one required actions, to get a specific outcome. That is, something which can only be achieved by doing these required actions. An interesting consequence of requiring complete processes to be accessible, is that a single web page, if it is part of a process, can be part of multiple websites. An online payment system such as Paypal for example. Pages on paypal.com can easilly be a used in processes originating from many different websites. Since the pages on which such processes start are clearly part of those websites (and not for instance Paypal), and WCAG 2 doesn't allow us to say these pages are conform, unless the rest of the process conforms as well, the Paypal pages must be included in the scope of the evaluation. Otherwise we can't make the claim that all web pages of a given website are conform WCAG 2. Considering that, I think that an interesting question to answer is; are there other examples of web pages that can be part of multiple websites? I'd be in favor of making this the only exception, and for all other pages to have a many-to-one relationship with a website. That might take some work to define this properly, but it seems to make intuitive sence. That was a bit longer then I intended, sorry, interesting stuff! I can't help it. Wilco ________________________________________ Van: Velleman, Eric [evelleman@bartimeus.nl] Verzonden: donderdag 1 december 2011 10:40 Aan: Martijn Houtepen; Alistair Garrison; Eval TF; KerstinProbiesch Onderwerp: RE: Finding complete processes Yes! But is a game/complete process always part of the scope if it is on a website? Can we include or exclude parts? Kindest regards, Eric ________________________________________ Van: Martijn Houtepen [m.houtepen@accessibility.nl] Verzonden: woensdag 30 november 2011 10:01 Aan: Alistair Garrison; Eval TF; Kerstin Probiesch Onderwerp: RE: Finding complete processes Hi All, I agree. I think a predefined way of navigating, leading to a goal of some kind (a download for example) could be regarded a 'complete process' as well. In the case of point-and-click adventure games, the whole game will be a 'complete process'. Best regards, Martijn -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: Alistair Garrison [mailto:alistair.j.garrison@gmail.com] Verzonden: woensdag 30 november 2011 9:36 Aan: Eval TF; Kerstin Probiesch Onderwerp: Re: Finding complete processes Hi All, Just adding to my previous mail. The simplest way to find complete processes might be to search (scan) the site for forms (excluding those in every page i.e. search)... Saying that, search (and other 'on every page' forms) probably should be included once as a complete process. Again, all the best Alistair
Received on Thursday, 1 December 2011 10:27:50 UTC