- From: <fischer@dias.de>
- Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2011 09:41:25 +0200
- To: public-wai-evaltf@w3.org
Hi EVAL TF, To me, it is not at all clear what a "problem-centred" approach to web site accessibility evaluation actually is. I would have thought that the existence of WCAG success criteria means to check pages or processes *across the board* to to spot and record *any* problems that may exist, also less obvious ones. Problems become apparent only during those checks (if they are not glaringly obvious - but even then, we must look out also for less obvious ones). So I think if we want to distinguish between the common page or page-sample pased approach and something else, this something else would be *processes*: a particular sequence of pages, page states and user interactions that lead to a definable result. One can focus on those, but we should keep in mind that the accessibility of individual pages must not be ignored over this. So a problem for any calculation of score is how the assessment of processes can be integrated with results from page sample checks which in my view won't simply be unnecessary - unless you define the use of *any* page alone as a process... Maybe I misunderstood. Can please someone step forward and explain what a "problem-centred" approach is supposed to mean and how it can ensure that important barriers are not overlooked? Regards, Detlev Quoting kvotis@iti.gr: > Hi to all > > i aggree with Richard and others regarding the problem-centred approach. > We have followed the same approach in the FP7 ACCESSIBLE project > assessment tools where the evaluation could be also performed through the > usage of different categories of personas, functional limitations, etc. > > regards > > kostas > > > ------------------- > Dr. Konstantinos Votis > Computer Engineer & Informatics,PhD, Msc, MBA > Research Associate > Informatics and Telematics Institute > Centre for Research and Technology Hellas > 6th Klm. Charilaou - Thermi Road > P.O. BOX 60361 GR - 570 01 > Thessaloniki – Greece > Tel.: +30-2311-257722 > Fax : +30-2310-474128 > E-mail : kvotis@iti.gr > > > >> Hi, >> I agree with Vivienne and Kerstin that a problem-centred approach is best. >> Using problems means that you look at the whole website (if appropriate) >> and >> are able to identify particular groups that are disadvantaged by the >> issues >> found. This is much more useful if you want to compare sites. Explaining >> that 20% of pages are not accessible has less impact than saying that a >> particular group (keyboard users, blind users etc.) cannot use the site. >> >> You can still apply the problem-centred approach to single pages, >> templates >> or components. >> >> Richard >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Kerstin Probiesch >> Sent: Saturday, September 03, 2011 12:08 PM >> To: 'Eval TF' >> Cc: 'Vivienne CONWAY' >> Subject: AW: Additional Point/Question: problem centered / page centered >> evaluation >> >> Hi Vivienne, hi TF, >> >>> The question of problem-centered or page-centered approach is going to >>> be tricky. >> >> Yes. It is. >> >>> Personally I favour the problem-centered approach as I am >>> seldom assessing a single page. Violations in my opinion, usually are >>> duplicated across pages. For example if there is a lack of keyboard >>> access on a single page, that is likely to occur on most if not all >>> pages. Some websites are so huge, that a page-centered approach is >>> simply not feasible. >> >> Same opinion. When following a page-centered approach you have to document >> the same problem on every page again and again. Keyboard access is a good >> example for that, another one is SC 3.1.1. The more single pages you have, >> the more the page-centered approach might be imo insufficient. Not only >> for >> the accessibility statement/report/result but also for the steps a website >> owner has to do or order to do. An example: you have a huge website with >> hundreds or more single pages and - let me say - 10 or more categories. In >> this case an evaluation guided by a problem-centered approach will find >> more >> violations and according to my experiences you can e.g. find out if >> all/not >> all/just some/or one online editor/s know how to organize the content (Hx, >> lists,...) or how to deal with SC 1.1.1. In addition you can give specific >> instructions. >> >> Another problem of the page-centered approach is imo the following: You >> _have_ to define a set of "typical" pages to test on every website as part >> of the methodology. A website owner would complain if you test different >> types. What happens in following situation: on one homepage (main page) >> you >> have a video which violates the SC, on another website you also have a >> video >> which violates the SC but the video is not on the main page and probably >> also not on one of the defined set of pages according to the followed >> page-centered approach? One can argue: in this case we are testing also >> the >> video. But, what about 1.3.3, 1.4.1 and 1.3.1 and how to deal with >> processes? Important questions I think are >> >> - are accessible statements which are reliable and valid based upon X >> (3,4,5,10?) pages possible and how many pages one have to test? This >> corresponds with "R04: Replicability: different Web accessibility >> evaluators >> who perform the same tests on the same site should get the same results >> within a given tolerance." >> - how avoid human errors during the process of page selection before >> starting a particular test and during the test itself? >> >> Nevertheless and even if I prefer a problem-centered approach, a >> page-centered one is probably the only acceptible and pragmatical method >> when you have to test a great amount of websites in a comparative study - >> but here again I think we will have limitations with consequences for the >> accessibility statement(s). >> >> I suggest that we also discuss, if we as TF should give redommendations/ >> suggestions for different scenarios: >> >> - testing one single page (test should include every SC on this single >> page)?! >> - testing a website (walkthrough for every single SC _and_ every single >> step >> of a process, if existing)?! >> - comparative studies (testing every SC on a defined set of "typical" >> pages) >> ?! >> - (...)?! >> >> And we also have to consider the conformity levels. >> >> I'm thinking about if it might be helpful to collect possible scenarios to >> see which approach might be the best for a given scenario resp. discuss if >> we recommend one approach for all scenarios? >> >> Last not least: Also the problem-centered approach might lead to problems. >> In the page-centered approach a tester has finished the test when checked >> all SCs for the collected single pages. In a problem-centered approach one >> have to find other criterias otherwise the tester is "lost in violations" >> depending on the quality of the website. >> >> >>> On the other hand, a developer who is adding a single page and wanting >>> to know if it meets accessibility criteria would be testing only that >>> page. Thoughts? >> >> This is an interesting question. It can be that the added single page >> belongs to an already tested website or not. If the added single belongs >> to >> an already tested site, maybe the test is long ago. I think in case of an >> added single page a test should include all SCs which indicates the >> problem-centered approach. >> >> I hope my points are clear. Sadly, I'm not very familiar in writing >> English >> :-( practice will do, hopefully. >> >> Regards >> >> Kerstin >> >> >>> >>> >>> Regards >>> >>> Vivienne L. Conway >>> ________________________________________ >>> From: public-wai-evaltf-request@w3.org [public-wai-evaltf- >>> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Shadi Abou-Zahra [shadi@w3.org] >>> Sent: Tuesday, 30 August 2011 5:05 PM >>> To: Eval TF >>> Subject: Fwd: Additional Point/Question: problem centered / page >>> centered evaluation >>> >>> -------- Original Message -------- >>> Subject: Additional Point/Question: problem centered / page centered >>> evaluation >>> Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 08:21:34 +0000 >>> From: Kerstin Probiesch <mail@barrierefreie-informationskultur.de> >>> To: <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org> >>> >>> Dear Eval TF, >>> >>> I want to add the following question: should we recommend a problem >>> centered >>> or a page centered approach? In my opinion this question is not only >>> essential for further discussions about single questions and topics >>> (true/false, rankings, involve people with disabilities) but essential >>> for >>> the whole methodology. >>> >>> Regs >>> >>> Kerstin >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------- >>> Kerstin Probiesch - Freie Beraterin >>> Barrierefreiheit, Social Media, Webkompetenz >>> Kantstra?e 10/19 | 35039 Marburg >>> Tel.: 06421 167002 >>> E-Mail: mail@barrierefreie-informationskultur.de >>> Web: http://www.barrierefreie-informationskultur.de >>> >>> XING: http://www.xing.com/profile/Kerstin_Probiesch >>> Twitter: http://twitter.com/kprobiesch >>> ------------------------------------ >>> >>> 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 Monday, 5 September 2011 07:42:01 UTC