Re: Not Applicable (was Re: Evaluation scheme with three options - proposal) from Detlev Fischer on 2012-02-23 (public-wai-evaltf@w3.org from February 2012)

From: Detlev Fischer <fischer@dias.de>
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 15:59:07 +0100
To: public-wai-evaltf@w3.org
Message-ID: <4F46543B.5000804@dias.de>
Sorry - I just realised that the image example was slightly confusing 
especially as I suggested SC 1.1.1 was too complex to be treated in on 
checkpoint :-)

Our test, for example, has three 4 1.1.1 checkpoints:
- unlinked images
- linked images
- decorative images
- CAPTCHA

A better example for several techniques being part of just one 
checkpoint would have been 2.4.1 Bypass blocks, where you might check 
whether bypassing is enabled by headings OR skip links OR landmarks 
(provided that ARIA landmarks are deems accesibility supported) OR HTML5 
structural elements (same accessibility support issue)

Detlev

Am 23.02.2012 15:48, schrieb Detlev Fischer:
> I agree that the use of N.A. has practical advantages and that not using
> it will be confusing to many people not into testing technicalities.
> It's just a tradeoff whether we want to upset or run counter to a WCAG
> WG decision that was seemingly made after lengthy deliberation some time
> ago.
>
> Regarding techniques vs SC as checkpoints, I do think that checkpoints
> should be more detailed then, say SC 1.1.1 oe SC 1.3.1 which combine an
> awful lot of different requirements.
>
> When I said in the last telecon that techniques themselves should not be
> used as checkpoints, I intended to say that the level of technique is
> (often) too fine-grained for a checkpoint, especially since several
> techniques may be applicable and used to meet a specific SC and in
> practical terms, the check may cover several of them at the same time.
>
> For example, looking at alternative text, you would look at all images
> on a page and determine whether the alt text should give the purpose or
> destination of linked images, the content of unlinked images, or be
> empty for decorative images. For all these things, different techniques
> exist, but in terms of checkpoint procedure, you just run through all
> images and check for each one that the appropriate technique has been used.
>
> Regards,
> Detlev
>
>
> Am 23.02.2012 12:02, schrieb Kerstin Probiesch:
>> +1 for what Richards says :-)
>>
>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>>> Von: RichardWarren [mailto:richard.warren@userite.com]
>>> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 23. Februar 2012 11:53
>>> An: Vivienne CONWAY; Eval TF
>>> Betreff: Re: Not Applicable (was Re: Evaluation scheme with three
>>> options - proposal)
>>>
>>> Hi Vivienne and all.
>>>
>>> When I use the "pass" term for things that do not exist I get queries
>>> from
>>> my clients who think that I have not done the job properly.
>>>
>>> To save us all the hassle of explaining the complexity of W3C logic, I
>>> therefore use N/A for SCs and Guideline 1.2. on my score sheet. At
>>> the top
>>> of my score sheet I explain the meanings of Pass, Fail and N/A
>>> including
>>> that we give a pass score value to N/A because the designer has
>>> avoided
>>> using the relevant technologies that can cause particular problems.
>>> This
>>> means the in the executive summary I can count N/As as Pass and avoid
>>> the
>>> hassle. (eg. "The site passes all 12 guidelines")
>>>
>>> Richard
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Vivienne CONWAY
>>> Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 9:09 AM
>>> To: Shadi Abou-Zahra
>>> Cc: Eval TF
>>> Subject: RE: Not Applicable (was Re: Evaluation scheme with three
>>> options -
>>> proposal)
>>>
>>> HI Shadi& all
>>>
>>> That's true, however where it comes unstuck is in the reporting. CEO's
>>> like
>>> to see lovely graphs showing how many of the criteria have been met.
>>> If the
>>> data is recorded as 'passed' even though it doesn't exist (the audio
>>> file),
>>> then the graph and any stats look better than they are really are. If
>>> it is
>>> n/a or something similar, they can't confuse this with something that
>>> actually meets a requirement.
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> Vivienne L. Conway, B.IT(Hons), MACS CT
>>> PhD Candidate& Sessional Lecturer, Edith Cowan University, Perth, W.A.
>>> Director, Web Key IT Pty Ltd.
>>> v.conway@ecu.edu.au
>>> 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: Shadi Abou-Zahra [shadi@w3.org]
>>> Sent: Thursday, 23 February 2012 6:02 PM
>>> To: Vivienne CONWAY
>>> Cc: Eval TF
>>> Subject: Re: Not Applicable (was Re: Evaluation scheme with three
>>> options -
>>> proposal)
>>>
>>> Hi Vivienne,
>>>
>>> Isn't it the same if you called it "passed" or "not applicable" then
>>> the
>>> content is added? In both cases your report is already out of date and
>>> the content needs to be reassessed.
>>>
>>> Note that even in this most basic report it is pretty clear when the
>>> content passed because there was no corresponding content:
>>> -<http://www.w3.org/WAI/demos/bad/before/reports/home.html>
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Shadi
>>>
>>>
>>> On 23.2.2012 09:47, Vivienne CONWAY wrote:
>>>> HI Alistair
>>>> I agree with you on this one for sure.
>>>>
>>>> If I can't find an issue (say an audio file) that does not
>>> necessarily
>>>> mean that the website should pass on that criteria. It may be added
>>> later,
>>>> or I may just not have located it when looking for suitable pages to
>>>> assess. I'm more comfortable with 'not applicable' or 'not tested'
>>> or
>>>> 'not located on reviewed pages' or something similar.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>>
>>>> Vivienne L. Conway, B.IT(Hons), MACS CT
>>>> 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: Thursday, 23 February 2012 5:43 PM
>>>> To: Eval TF
>>>> Subject: Re: Not Applicable (was Re: Evaluation scheme with three
>>>> options - proposal)
>>>>
>>>> Hi All,
>>>>
>>>> I would feel a little uncomfortable declaring something to be passed
>>> -
>>>> simply because I could not find any applicable content.
>>>>
>>>> I know when showing conformity with ISO documentation "reference to
>>> the
>>>> appropriate Standard (title, number, and year of issue); when the
>>>> certification applies to only a Portion of a standard, the applicable
>>>> portion(s) should be clearly identified;" (ISO Guide 23).
>>>>
>>>> In our situation, this would mean that we simply list all things
>>> (most
>>>> probably Success Criteria) we have found to be applicable in the
>>>> Conformance Claim. Then go on to state which of these things has
>>> been
>>>> passed or failed in the report.
>>>>
>>>> Hope this helps.
>>>>
>>>> All the best
>>>>
>>>> Alistair
>>>>
>>>> On 22 Feb 2012, at 12:37, Emmanuelle Gutiérrez y Restrepo wrote:
>>>>
>>>> My +1 too :-)
>>>>
>>>> I think that this is very important.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Emmanuelle
>>>>
>>>> 2012/2/22 Velleman,
>>>> Eric<evelleman@bartimeus.nl<mailto:evelleman@bartimeus.nl>>
>>>> Hi Vivienne,
>>>>
>>>> Think I put it on the agenda. So lets talk about it.
>>>> Kindest regards,
>>>>
>>>> Eric
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________________
>>>> Van: Vivienne CONWAY
>>> [v.conway@ecu.edu.au<mailto:v.conway@ecu.edu.au>]
>>>> Verzonden: woensdag 22 februari 2012 3:13
>>>> Aan: Michael S Elledge; Shadi Abou-Zahra
>>>> CC: public-wai-evaltf@w3.org<mailto:public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
>>>> Onderwerp: RE: Not Applicable (was Re: Evaluation scheme with three
>>>> options - proposal)
>>>>
>>>> Hi all
>>>>
>>>> I just ran across this discussion which is something that I think we
>>>> should put in the EVTF methodology. I know that I've been using n/a
>>> when
>>>> it seemed the item was not present in the website e.g. videos.
>>> However if
>>>> this is the W3C consensus, I'll need to change my reporting. Can we
>>> talk
>>>> about this in our teleconference this week?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>>
>>>> Vivienne L. Conway, B.IT<http://B.IT/>(Hons), MACS CT
>>>> 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: Michael S Elledge [elledge@msu.edu<mailto:elledge@msu.edu>]
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, 22 February 2012 2:29 AM
>>>> To: Shadi Abou-Zahra
>>>> Cc: public-wai-evaltf@w3.org<mailto:public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
>>>> Subject: Re: Not Applicable (was Re: Evaluation scheme with three
>>>> ptions - proposal)
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the explanation, Shadi. I imagine it took some discussion
>>> to
>>>> reach that consensus! :^)
>>>>
>>>> Mike
>>>>
>>>> On 2/20/2012 2:30 PM, Shadi Abou-Zahra wrote:
>>>>> Hi Mike,
>>>>>
>>>>> Good question. We had a long discussion about that and also asked
>>> the
>>>>> WCAG Working Group on their position on this.
>>>>>
>>>>> According to WCAG WG, the term "Not Applicable" is not defined and
>>> is
>>>>> ambiguous. Accessibility requirements are deemed met when the
>>> content
>>>>> does not require specific accessibility features. For example, the
>>>>> requirement for captioning is deemed met if there is no video
>>> content.
>>>>>
>>>>> I will try dig out the corresponding pointers but I recall that this
>>>>> was something that was less clearly documented in the WCAG
>>> documents.
>>>>> We will probably need to clarify this point somewhere in section 5
>>> of
>>>>> the Methodology, and possibly as WCAG WG to also clarify some of
>>> their
>>>>> materials (so that we can refer to it from our explanation).
>>>>>
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> Shadi
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 20.2.2012 19:26, Michael S Elledge wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Shadi--
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I noticed in the BAD example that success criteria for which there
>>> was
>>>>>> no related web content received a "Pass." I'm curious why that
>>> approach
>>>>>> was chosen rather than to identify such instances as "Not
>>> Applicable" or
>>>>>> "NA." Wouldn't using the term "NA" be both more informative and
>>>>>> accurate?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mike
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/20/2012 10:43 AM, Shadi Abou-Zahra wrote:
>>>>>>> Small addition:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 20.2.2012 16:28, Shadi Abou-Zahra wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi Kerstin, All,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm not too sure what the difference between options #1 and #2
>>>>>>>> would be
>>>>>>>> in practice, as I hope that evaluators will simply link to
>>> Techniques
>>>>>>>> rather than to attempt to explain the issues themselves.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Here is an example of what a report of option #1 could look like:
>>>>>>>> -<http://www.w3.org/WAI/demos/bad/before/reports/home.html>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Here is a positive example too: ;)
>>>>>>> -<http://www.w3.org/WAI/demos/bad/after/reports/home.html>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>> Shadi
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Note: this is a report for a single page but it could still be a
>>> basis
>>>>>>>> for reports of option #1 for entire websites; it just has a
>>> pass/fail
>>>>>>>> for each Success Criterion and some Techniques to justify these
>>>>>>>> claims.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For option #2 we could introduce a scoring function in addition
>>> to the
>>>>>>>> pass/fail result. This would require the evaluators to fully
>>> evaluate
>>>>>>>> every page in the selected sample and count the frequencies of
>>>>>>>> errors to
>>>>>>>> calculate a score. It could help compare websites and motivate
>>> the
>>>>>>>> developers (at least those who are close to full compliance).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Finally, option #3 would be more in-depth reports with examples
>>> of the
>>>>>>>> errors and explanations of ways to repair the errors. These are,
>>> as
>>>>>>>> Kerstin says, developed by consultants (as opposed to pure
>>> evaluators)
>>>>>>>> for developers who are new to accessibility.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We attempted to provide such an example report in the initial
>>>>>>>> version of
>>>>>>>> the Before and After Demo (BAD) but it is really lots of work:
>>>>>>>> -<http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/2005/Demo/report/>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>> Shadi
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 19.2.2012 20:36, Elle wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Kerstin:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I like these three options. I am interested, however, in how
>>> many
>>>>>>>>> clients
>>>>>>>>> that typically ask for something as abbreviated as Option 1. For
>>>>>>>>> those in
>>>>>>>>> this group, do you experience situations with a lot of clients
>>> who
>>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>>> want more than the pass/fail report?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>> Elle
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 4:36 AM, Kerstin Probiesch<
>>>>>>>>> k.probiesch@googlemail.com<mailto:k.probiesch@googlemail.com>>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> in our last teleconference we discussed a evaluation scheme
>>> with
>>>>>>>>>> three
>>>>>>>>>> options based upon 100% Conformance. I appreciate these
>>> proposals
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> see
>>>>>>>>>> them as chance to integrate or point to the three documents of
>>>>>>>>>> WCAG2:
>>>>>>>>>> Guidelines and SCs, Understanding and How to meet.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> One proposal for handling the documents in an evaluation
>>> scheme,
>>>>>>>>>> based upon
>>>>>>>>>> the normative guidelines and SCs as core:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> =====
>>>>>>>>>> Option 1: WCAG 2.0 – Core Test ("light version" or whatever the
>>>>>>>>>> wording
>>>>>>>>>> later will be)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> # Guideline X (Heading)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ## Checkpoint: SC XX (Subheading)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Result: pass/fail
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Character: global/regional (or another wording) - – if
>>> regional: a
>>>>>>>>>> list of
>>>>>>>>>> pages where the problem exists
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ## Checkpoint: SC XX (Subheading)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Result: pass/fail
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Character: global/regional (or another wording) - – if
>>> regional: a
>>>>>>>>>> list of
>>>>>>>>>> pages where the problem exists
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> (...)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> =====
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Use cases for Option1:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - experienced developers and clients who know WCAG2 and need
>>> just
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> results,
>>>>>>>>>> - comparative evaluations (20 hotel websites, city websites…)
>>>>>>>>>> - or for example just with the SCs of level a and a smaller
>>> scope as
>>>>>>>>>> pre-test to decide together with the client what the best next
>>> steps
>>>>>>>>>> might
>>>>>>>>>> be (evaluation, consulting, probably workshops for editors)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> =====
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Option 2: WCAG 2.0 – Core incl. understanding (name?)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> # Guideline X (Heading)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ## Checkpoint: SC XX (Subheading)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Result: pass/fail
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Character: global/regional (or another wording) – if regional:
>>> a
>>>>>>>>>> list of
>>>>>>>>>> pages where the problem exists
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Problem (Subheading): Description of existing problems and
>>> barriers
>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>> users (here know how out of the understanding document could be
>>> part
>>>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>>>> description).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ## Checkpoint: SC XX (Subheading)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Result: pass/fail
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Character: global/regional (or another wording) – if regional:
>>> a
>>>>>>>>>> list of
>>>>>>>>>> pages where the problem exists
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Problem (Subheading): Description of existing problems and
>>> barriers
>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>> users (here know how out of the understanding document could be
>>> part
>>>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>>>> description).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> (...)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ======
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Use cases:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - comparative evaluations (depending on the specific time and
>>> costs)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - if a client just want descriptions
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - regular tests like "evaluation of the week"
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> =====
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Option 3: WCAG 2.0 – Core, understanding, how to meet (name?)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> # Guideline X (Heading)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ## Checkpoint: SC XX (Subheading)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Result: pass/fail
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Character: global/regional (or another wording) – if regional:
>>> a
>>>>>>>>>> list of
>>>>>>>>>> pages where the problem exists
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Problem (Subheading): description/explanation of existing
>>>>>>>>>> problems and
>>>>>>>>>> barriers for users (here know how out of the Understanding
>>> Document
>>>>>>>>>> could
>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>> part of the description).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Action (Subheading): Description of techniques for meeting the
>>> SC
>>>>>>>>>> (could be
>>>>>>>>>> techniques which are already in the techniques document or new
>>>>>>>>>> techniques
>>>>>>>>>> which are not in the document, but with which the SC can be
>>> met).
>>>>>>>>>> Here even
>>>>>>>>>> usability aspects can play a role, like: you can do a, b, c or
>>> d –
>>>>>>>>>> I/we
>>>>>>>>>> propose/recommend c.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ## Checkpoint: SC XX (Subheading)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Result: pass/fail
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Character: global/regional (or another wording) – if regional:
>>> a
>>>>>>>>>> list of
>>>>>>>>>> pages where the problem exists
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Problem (Subheading): description/explanation of existing
>>>>>>>>>> problems and
>>>>>>>>>> barriers for users (here know how out of the Understanding
>>> Document
>>>>>>>>>> could
>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>> part of the description).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Action (Subheading): Description of techniques for meeting the
>>> SC
>>>>>>>>>> (could be
>>>>>>>>>> techniques which are already in the techniques document or new
>>>>>>>>>> techniques
>>>>>>>>>> which are not in the document, but with which the SC can be
>>> met).
>>>>>>>>>> Here even
>>>>>>>>>> usability aspects can play a role, like: you can do a, b, c or
>>> d –
>>>>>>>>>> I/we
>>>>>>>>>> propose/recommend c.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> (...)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ======
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Use cases:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - test incl. consulting
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - for clients who are not very familiar with accessibility and
>>> WCAG2
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ============
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> For a seal/badge or any formal confirmation Option 1 is the
>>> minimum.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> A report might also / should? also have intro parts like:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - Short description of the Option 1, 2 or 3
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - Something like a disclaimer ("results might not be complete,
>>>>>>>>>> therefore it
>>>>>>>>>> is important to go through the page, view all similar elements
>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> solve
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> corresponding problems)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - Glossary (for specific terms we used in our methodology -like
>>>>>>>>>> regional/global – if we decide to use them)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - Documentation of the used OS, Browsers and Versions, probably
>>> used
>>>>>>>>>> assistive technologies incl. versions
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - Tested Conformance Level (A, AA, AA)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - Results
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - Summary, probably written as an overall impression - we
>>> discussed
>>>>>>>>>> in this
>>>>>>>>>> list the 'motivation factor'. I think the aim of an evaluation
>>> is
>>>>>>>>>> not to
>>>>>>>>>> motivate. Nevertheless, writing a nice overall impression in a
>>>>>>>>>> report, may
>>>>>>>>>> have this function. Ok, except when there is nothing nice to
>>> say.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This scheme could probably also be used for processes, pdf,
>>> flash
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> so on
>>>>>>>>>> and I think it would be flexible enough (time, costs, ...) and
>>> in
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> same
>>>>>>>>>> time valid against the Conformance Requirements, because the
>>> core
>>>>>>>>>> (evaluation itself) is the same in every option.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Important, as I see it, is that the evaluator has the three
>>>>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>>>> aspects in mind and in the report, which I believe shouldn't be
>>>>>>>>>> mixed:
>>>>>>>>>> evaluation (Core, testing SCs), explanation (description of the
>>>>>>>>>> problem/violation, understanding) and consulting (how to meet,
>>>>>>>>>> usability,..)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The evaluator could document the "progress toward meeting
>>> success
>>>>>>>>>> criteria
>>>>>>>>>> from all levels beyond the achieved level of conformance": If
>>> for
>>>>>>>>>> example
>>>>>>>>>> the evaluation is for Level A with Option 3 the SCs of AA could
>>>>>>>>>> also be
>>>>>>>>>> checked (pass/fail) without any further description or with
>>> further
>>>>>>>>>> description, depending on the contract.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Advantage: every evaluator or testing organization uses the
>>>>>>>>>> methodology and
>>>>>>>>>> a standardized 'template' for the core and the evaluation
>>> itself.
>>>>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>>>> descriptions of existing barriers (explanatory
>>> part/understanding in
>>>>>>>>>> Option
>>>>>>>>>> 2 and 3) and the consulting part (How to meet, in Option 3)
>>> would
>>>>>>>>>> be the
>>>>>>>>>> specific added value for the clients/the evaluator/the testing
>>>>>>>>>> organization.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Best
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --Kerstin
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>> Kerstin Probiesch - Freie Beraterin
>>>>>>>>>> Barrierefreiheit, Social Media, Webkompetenz
>>>>>>>>>> Kantstraße 10/19 | 35039 Marburg
>>>>>>>>>> Tel.: 06421 167002
>>>>>>>>>> E-Mail:
>>>>>>>>>> mail@barrierefreie-
>>> informationskultur.de<mailto:mail@barrierefreie-informationskultur.de>
>>>>>>>>>> Web:
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.barrierefreie-
>>> informationskultur.de<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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Emmanuelle Gutiérrez y Restrepo
>>>> Fundación y Seminario SIDAR
>>>> URL: www.sidar.org<http://www.sidar.org/>
>>>> email: emmanuelle@sidar.org<mailto:emmanuelle@sidar.org>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>


-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Detlev Fischer PhD
DIAS GmbH - Daten, Informationssysteme und Analysen im Sozialen
Geschäftsführung: Thomas Lilienthal, Michael Zapp

Telefon: +49-40-43 18 75-25
Mobile: +49-157 7-170 73 84
Fax: +49-40-43 18 75-19
E-Mail: fischer@dias.de

Anschrift: Schulterblatt 36, D-20357 Hamburg
Amtsgericht Hamburg HRB 58 167
Geschäftsführer: Thomas Lilienthal, Michael Zapp
---------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Thursday, 23 February 2012 14:59:41 UTC