RE: Finding complete processes

Sorry, I meant 'hi Richard' in my previous mail..

Eric

________________________________________
Van: Velleman, Eric
Verzonden: vrijdag 2 december 2011 14:23
Aan: RichardWarren; Eval TF
Onderwerp: RE: Finding complete processes

Hi Warren,
Agree with you on owners responsibility.
Does you last remark mean that you would also include alternatives over the phone into the scope?
Eric

________________________________________
Van: RichardWarren [richard.warren@userite.com]
Verzonden: vrijdag 2 december 2011 13:35
Aan: Velleman, Eric; Eval TF
Onderwerp: Re: Finding complete processes

Hi,

Sorry if I appear pedantic, but if the external website is part of the
process then it must be included. The site owner has decided that s/he wants
to use the external service as part of the process, so if s/he has chosen a
non-compliant provider that is the owner's responsibility and they are
offering a non-compliant service to the consumer.

Otherwise it is like a restaurant owner saying that he is not responsible
for the awful wine he serves because it is supplied by the local
off-licence.

So - Eric, if a website owner works their !%#$ off to make a site compliant
they need to spend a bit of time selecting compliant sub-contractors - OR
devising an alternative method of completion that does not require the use
of the non-compliant element. A few years ago we had a client who had this
problem and overcame it with a contact form for screen-reader users so that
the payment could be completed manually over the phone.

Richard

-----Original Message-----
From: Velleman, Eric
Sent: Friday, December 02, 2011 11:01 AM
To: Eval TF
Subject: RE: Finding complete processes

Hi Alistair,

Yes, sounds good. This would mean that the website cannot claim conformance
to any level. But can explain the partial conformance on a seperate page?
Partial conformance would then not just be a page thing, but a website
thing. And probably easy to describe and explain. Any thoughts from others?

On the other hand, this approach might not be stimulating for organisations
working their !%#$ off to make their website accessible and then failing
because of one external page..
Regards,

Eric

________________________________________
Van: Vivienne CONWAY [v.conway@ecu.edu.au]
Verzonden: vrijdag 2 december 2011 10:02
Aan: Alistair Garrison; Shadi Abou-Zahra; Eval TF
Onderwerp: RE: Finding complete processes

Hi Alistair
I don't think I could fault that approach.  What you are saying is complete
and truthful.  You aren't claiming compliance for anything that you can't
vouch for.


Regards

Vivienne L. Conway, B.IT(Hons)
PhD Candidate & Sessional Lecturer, Edith Cowan University, Perth, W.A.
Director, Web Key IT Pty Ltd.
v.conway@ecu.edu.au<mailto:v.conway@ecu.edu.au>
v.conway@webkeyit.com<mailto:v.conway@webkeyit.com>
Mob: 0415 383 673

This email is confidential and intended only for the use of the individual
or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this email is
strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify
me immediately by return email or telephone and destroy the original
message.

________________________________
From: Alistair Garrison [alistair.j.garrison@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, 2 December 2011 5:25 PM
To: Shadi Abou-Zahra; Eval TF
Subject: Re: Finding complete processes

Hi Shadi, all,

Say I am owner of examplesite.com<http://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<http://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<http://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)



________________________________
This e-mail is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient you must
not disclose or use the information contained within. If you have received
it in error please return it to the sender via reply e-mail and delete any
record of it from your system. The information contained within is not the
opinion of Edith Cowan University in general and the University accepts no
liability for the accuracy of the information provided.

CRICOS IPC 00279B

Received on Friday, 2 December 2011 13:26:32 UTC