Defining website scope and complete processes

Hi All,

Dear All, 

For clarity (and a bit to play devil's advocate), I would like to draw together my thoughts from "defining website scope using sitemap protocol" and "finding complete processes".

Again, say I am the owner of examplesite...

As I have been building my website I have been taking note of all complete processes.  Currently, the site contains three complete processes, two of which end in third-party processes (let's say a credit card process and a booking process).  I have found out from the responsible third-party that a conformance claim for the credit card process has been made - but none is made for the booking form.  I have checked the level (conforms to WCAG 2.0 at level X) of conformance claim for the credit card process.

In order to form my own conformance claim (following http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/conformance) I use sitemap indexes / the sitemap protocol in order to clearly define the pages I wish to include in my claim.  I, of course, include any pages containing what I think are key functions.  I then look at each one of my complete processes (working in the belief that all my own pages conform). I use my own two-part rule:

1) A complete process can be defined as an integral part of my FULL Conformance claim IF:

- none of the pages in the process belongs to a third-party; or
- one or more pages in a complete process belongs to a third-party - and a conformance claim, made by the third-party, exists for those pages; and the conformance claim references the same or a higher level than the level I wish to claim conformance to.  

2) An additional PARTIAL conformance claim should be included for a complete process IF:
- one or more pages in a complete process belongs to a third-party - and a conformance claim, made by the third-party, exists for those pages which claims conformance at a lower level than the level I wish to claim conformance to; or
- one or more pages in a complete process belongs to a third-party - and no conformance claim, made by the third-party, exists for those pages.  

It goes without saying that I will, of course, monitor the conformance claims of all pages included in my website from third-party processes on an on-going basis, and will make adjustments to my conformance claim if/when necessary.  If all of my pages conform this would only really be a paper exercise, as none of my pages has changed. 

Right now though.. at the end of this process I am happy with my conformance claim - it is the conformance claim I WANT TO MAKE.

Finally, I want to evaluate my conformance to WCAG 2.0.   I expect I should only need to evaluate things once at the start, and only again when new things are defined in my conformance claim  - however, I would assume that it would only be the new things which would then need to be evaluated - not everything.   

So, I pick up the Website Accessibility Evaluation Methodology for WCAG 2.0 and...

Senario 1) It says using your conformance claim as the scope of the evaluation - go on to do x, y, z.  With a final result being - your conformance claim is true / false.
Senario 2) It says select a, b, c, d, e, f, g and define h, i, j, k... to form the scope of your evaluation - go on to do x, y, z.  WIth a final result - you can make the following conformance claim (defined by EVAL-TF) / you cannot make the following conformance claim (defined by EVAL-TF). 

Any thoughts / comments??? 

Very best regards

Alistair Garrison

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Alistair Garrison <alistair.j.garrison@gmail.com>
> Date: 2 December 2011 21:35:54 CET
> To: RichardWarren <richard.warren@userite.com>, Eval TF <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: Finding complete processes
> 
> Hi Richard, All
> 
> I agree - it is necessary for those responsible for a website to find out, from the third-party, the WCAG conformance status of any third-party pages they use, or are going to use, in a complete process.
> 
> All the best 
> 
> Alistair 
> 
> On 2 Dec 2011, at 19:32, RichardWarren wrote:
> 
>> 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
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>