Re: Finding complete processes

Hi Alistair and All,

We are dealing with the Scope part of the procedure for evaluation. We 
don't, at this point, need to know what, if any, conformance statement will 
be necessary. What we are trying to say is that within the scope any 
procedure must include the whole procedure as defined by W3C. I do not 
believe that it is "non-real worldish" to expect a website owner to ask a 
subcontractor such as PayPal if their system conforms to WCAG. In fact it 
would be a very good idea if they did !!!!

Richard

-----Original Message----- 
From: Alistair Garrison
Sent: Friday, December 02, 2011 4:35 PM
To: Eric Velleman ; Eval TF
Subject: Re: Finding complete processes

Hi Eric,

You suggested in a previous mail - "As an extreme option we could say that 
all processes that include external websites or webpages are non-conformant 
unless the external website or webpage (complete process) has its own 
conformance statement".   Which I agree with, but would suggest "partially 
conformant" (as in a Statement of Partial Conformance) rather than 
"non-conformant".

In this way, the people responsible for a website could still make a very 
full claim about the level of conformance of a website in general - only 
making additional statements of Partial conformance for affected 
processes...

On the other hand, if we stubbornly insist third-party pages 'must' be 
included for conformance this would almost certainly mean that a "whole 
website" could only claim conformance to any level if the website owner took 
full responsibility for the conformance of all the third-party pages they 
are using... I agree, would they really want to do that? Would they have to 
evaluate those pages themselves? If such pages change would this mean the 
conformance of the whole site was at risk??? No... to my mind this all 
starts to sound a little 'none-real-worldish' to me...

It hopefully goes without saying that all processes (thought conformant or 
partially conformant) should still be user checked - which is also something 
positive which could be mentioned in a conformance claim or such (like a 
VPAT).

This is a fascinating discussion which I trust is still open for more 
thought / comment...

All the best

Alistair Garrison

On 2 Dec 2011, at 12:01, Velleman, Eric wrote:

> 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 18:33:03 UTC