RE: Combining evaluations

Combining evaluations using different tools is a difficult one to address.  We use up to 3 evaluators and I like them to use the same AT for consistency.  However I can envision a testing environment where testers each use the AT they are most familiar with.  This would add more coverage to the testing - eg. could navigate with JAWS but not with NVDA or similar.  We all find differences in how AT handled different aspects of the website.  People might have a problem combining them when 1 page is tested with JAWS and one with NVDA obtaining different results - perhaps 1 passing and 1 not.  I think in that situation I'd prefer the pages be tested with the same AT.  It would be okay to use different AT if it was a situation of cross-checking results as above with JAWS and NVDA.


Regards

Vivienne L. Conway, B.IT(Hons), MACS CT, AALIA(cs)
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: Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG) [r.scano@webprofession.com]
Sent: Sunday, 27 January 2013 4:21 PM
To: 'Velleman, Eric'; public-wai-evaltf@w3.org; david100@sympatico.ca
Subject: R: Combining evaluations

This is one of the problem of WCAG 2.0 that we have also noticed in italian
government working group for accessibility. The definition of accessibility
supported regarding different assistive technologies in a real big problem,
especially if the conformance declaration isn't a voluntary declaration but
a law requirement.
I think that evalutation could be do by different people but with the same
"baseline" (same technologies for testing), otherwise I think is required
that any evalutator must evalutate the same pages for conformance.

---
Roberto Scano
International Webmasters Association / The HTML Writers Guild
http://www.iwanet.org

-----Messaggio originale-----
Da: Velleman, Eric [mailto:evelleman@bartimeus.nl]
Inviato: sabato 26 gennaio 2013 23:23
A: public-wai-evaltf@w3.org; david100@sympatico.ca
Oggetto: Combining evaluations

Dear EvalTF,

Although we mostly agree that "Accessibility support must be uniform
throughout a single website", there are a few comments in the latest survey
[1]. I would like to discuss this a bit more on the list, specifically a bit
more about combining evaluations.


In WCAG it is not a problem if you are a person with a disability and you
have to use multiple user-agents, assistive technology and other tools and
configurations to use a single web page. We do not change this in WCAG-EM:
If you want to evaluate using multiple  versions of user agents, tools and
screenreaders, that is ok. We only say that this should then be uniform
throughout the single website evaluation. For the next single website, you
can use another configuration, other tools, assistive technology etc.. This
may be depending on the evaluation commissioner, the budget, time etc.

The question is: Can we combine two evaluations by two different evaluators
(using different configurations for evaluation) of two different parts of a
single website into one accessibility evaluation statement for the single
website?

Both results of the evaluators are of course valid. but can they be combined
if they use different configurations and are about different parts of a
single website?

Kindest regards,

Eric

[1] <https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/48225/evaltfq7/results#x2586>

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 Thursday, 31 January 2013 13:46:18 UTC