- From: RichardWarren <richard.warren@userite.com>
- Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2011 09:51:33 -0000
- To: "Alistair Garrison" <alistair.j.garrison@gmail.com>, "Shadi Abou-Zahra" <shadi@w3.org>, "Eval TF" <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <4FDE3E8FF7614222B2179C6A8A716FE8@DaddyPC>
Hi All,
Are we in danger of forgetting the end user in all this. This has been a fascinating discussion, but the point at issue is that, within a scope statement, we need to make it clear that any process included within that scope must comply completely. The average end user is not going to refer to site maps or understand why they can only complete part of a process but not the rest. I believe that the W3C Conformance Requirement text is perfectly adequate for our needs -
3. Complete processes: When a Web page is one of a series of Web pages presenting a process (i.e., a sequence of steps that need to be completed in order to accomplish an activity), all Web pages in the process conform at the specified level or better. (Conformance is not possible at a particular level if any page in the process does not conform at that level or better.)
Example: An online store has a series of pages that are used to select and purchase products. All pages in the series from start to finish (checkout) conform in order for any page that is part of the process to conform.
Paying for an item is part of a process. If the only way to pay is via PayPal then the PayPal element is part of the process. If Paypal is not compliant then either a compliant alternative must be provided or the whole process fails and so does the application.
Links to external sites, including social sites such as Facebook and YouTube, are not part of a process. The default position is that any/all external links are not included in our scope unless specified.
However, if you embed a YouTube video in a page then that has to be done in a compliant way.
Best wishes from frosty London
Richard
From: Alistair Garrison
Sent: Friday, December 02, 2011 8:25 AM
To: Shadi Abou-Zahra ; Eval TF
Subject: Re: Finding complete processes
Hi Shadi, all,
Say I am owner of examplesite.com - which has two processes which end in third party sites (let's say a credit card process and a booking form - and, I know that one of the third parties has made a conformance claim for the credit card process - but none is made for the booking form).
In order to form my conformance claim I could use sitemap indexes / the sitemap protocol to define the pages I wish to make a conformance claim for. Then I define the complete processes for which I can make a conformance claim i.e. the credit card process - listing all pages including the third party page. Then I include a 'Statement of Partial Conformance' (as defined in http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-WCAG20-20081211/#conformance-partial) about the complete processes (booking process) which end in third party content for which no third party conformance claim was available e.g. "The booking process [defined in urls] does not conform, but would conform to WCAG 2.0 at level X if the following parts [urls] from uncontrolled sources were removed."
A conformance claim made in this way would, to my mind, provide a clear scope for an evaluation. You would not, however, be able to just say the "whole site" conforms - see my previous mail.
Thoughts / comments?
All the best
Alistair Garrison
On 2 Dec 2011, at 07:45, Shadi Abou-Zahra wrote:
Hi Alistair,
Conceptually I agree with you but we need to avoid unintentional loopholes. I think the credit card payment at the end of the process should be part of the evaluation. I don't think requiring that such "essential resources" are part of the evaluation contradicts the conformance claim declarations recommended in WCAG. It is a way of saying how these conformance claims should be completed.
I guess the summary is that, as usual, we need to find the correct balance between everything and nothing in defining the scope.
Regards,
Shadi
On 1.12.2011 21:23, Alistair Garrison wrote:
Dear all,
I strongly believe that the scope of the evaluation should be the wished for WCAG 2.0 defined conformance claim (detailing website sections, pages, processes, etc...) being made by the website owner / developer (based on http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/conformance), rather than what we are finding difficult to define, but easy to term, "the whole website".
Top reasons for this I believe are:
1) It supports, even encourages, detailed conformance claims to be made by the people responsible for the website. If you could just say "www.mysite.com conforms" what would the point of http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/conformance be...
2) It tells the public exactly what conforms in the website - a bit more like the VPAT. If the conformance claim state that a website's shopping process (defined by urls) conforms to x and y, a user will be certain that it will be accessible to them.
3) It makes evaluation more precise, and more efficient, as we know exactly what needs to be assessed (i.e. what is defined in the conformance claim) - and means that we would only ever need to assess the new parts of a conformance claim on an on-going basis; and
4) If the website contains any complete processes which back-ends into third party pages - we would not be allowed to say "the whole website" conforms in any case (as mentioned in my previous mail). That could render the evaluation methodology useless to an awful number of websites, as "their whole website" could never be said to conform - so why bother to use the evaluation methodology...
As time goes on I can think of more and more good reasons for choosing WCAG 2.0 defined conformance claims, over "the whole website", as the scope of the evaluation. However, it is your thoughts / comments on the above that I am most interested in...
Very best regards
Alistair Garrison
On 1 Dec 2011, at 11:27, Wilco Fiers wrote:
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
--
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 Friday, 2 December 2011 09:52:00 UTC