- From: Detlev Fischer <detlev.fischer@testkreis.de>
- Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 18:21:31 +0200
- To: "Boland Jr, Frederick E." <frederick.boland@nist.gov>
- Cc: "public-wai-evaltf@w3.org" <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
Hi Tim, hi list, This is an interesting model and quite complex, too. I wonder to what extent it can aid us in the Evaluation Methodology. The conceptual object of "accessibility rule" introduces a specific requirement on a level *below* success criteria, but probably *above* the level of individual WCAG technique (in the sense that the WCAG Quickref often specifies "use GXX AND one of the following techniques"). Then, there is a meta object "ruleset" which references WCAG SC as external reuqirement ID. All this is probably the result of quite a thorough ordering/ categorisation activity but I simply wonder whether it makes sense to take these extra concepts on board. Having said that, I think might be a good practical case for combining atomic tests related to a SC in a checkpoint. (For SC 1.3.1, think of inspecting the source code for lack, or wrong use, of semantic mark-up in editorial content). So how can we evaluate the usefulness of the conceptual model for WCAG- EM? It might be best to think of an typical evaluation scenario (something simple to start with) and then think of how the AInspector conceptual model would operate in testing and reporting, and to what extent in could be prescribed (if at all). One reason for my caution is that the link between "accessibility rules" and specific techniques is not an easy one. All atomic test results must live with the caveat that the SC might be met another way, which means the accessibility rule must aggregate different options / techniques for meeting it. So I wonder what "required rule" really means. Down the line, rule results are themselves subject to aggregation, both on the level of rule result and evaluation result across target HTML-objects, and this introduces further complexity. It reminds me a bit of the UWEM 1.0 score function - will anyone understand what goes on under the bonnet? How is criticality reflected? What confidence can we have in the aggregated result?, etc. But this is a another can of worms... Sorry, I really don't want to come across as pessimistic - I encourage everyone to look at the AInspector conceptual model. Then we might discuss its potential application in WCAG-EM tomorrow. Regards, Detlev On 11 Apr 2012, at 16:22, Boland Jr, Frederick E. wrote: > Shared by permission of Jon Gunderson of the Web Accessibility Best > Practices Group (NOTE: This is a draft and may change over time): > https://trac.ainspector.org/design/wiki/interaction-design/conceptual-model > > Thanks and best wishes > Tim Boland NIST -- Detlev Fischer testkreis - das Accessibility-Team von feld.wald.wiese c/o feld.wald.wiese Borselstraße 3-7 (im Hof) 22765 Hamburg Tel +49 (0)40 439 10 68-3 Mobil +49 (0)1577 170 73 84 Fax +49 (0)40 439 10 68-5 http://www.testkreis.de Beratung, Tests und Schulungen für barrierefreie Websites
Received on Wednesday, 11 April 2012 16:15:03 UTC