- From: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 09:41:50 +0100
- To: RichardWarren <richard.warren@userite.com>, Alistair Garrison <alistair.j.garrison@gmail.com>
- CC: Eval TF <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
Also a reminder to contribute techniques -- including failures -- that you know of but are not yet publicly documented to WCAG WG: - http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/TECHS-SUBMIT/ You guys are the people in the trenches doing evaluation on a regular basis, and the more we can collect and document the less differences there will be, which in turn will benefit accessibility and its market. Best, Shadi On 19.11.2013 14:47, RichardWarren wrote: > Dear Alistair, > > My "Checklist" is the WCAG guidelines and the question is "does this > page/site comply with each guideline?". > > I have testing procedures for each guideline, but I suppose you could > have individual checklists too. > > As far as I know the only areas for possible ambiguity are subjective > such as where words such as "understandable" and "meaningful". But > generally things like keyboard functionality work or do not work. > > So my answer to your question about which procedure to follow is that > any *correct* procedure can be followed as each will give the same result. > > Richard > > > > -----Original Message----- From: Alistair Garrison > Sent: Monday, November 18, 2013 9:24 PM > To: RichardWarren > Cc: Eval TF > Subject: Re: Following properly documented existing procedures - A > hypothetical question? > > Dear Richard, > >> From experience, I get the impression that evaluators tend to work from > checklists (which they compile over time, and generally hold many but > not all of the variations of things people do in reality). If two > people have slightly different checklists problems can occur - and > really this was the reason for my question. > > When I chair the Evaluation Methodology harmonisation efforts for the > EuroAccessibility Consortium we had many players in many countries with > slightly different checklists - same when I chaired initial Evaluation > Methodology efforts for Support-EAM / WABCluster. > > With reference to my reply to Detlev, the question is still - if a > properly documented evaluation / testing procedure exists for a web page > (albeit defined by someone else) should I not follow it, in place of my > own? > > All the best > > Alistair > > On 18 Nov 2013, at 20:21, RichardWarren wrote: > >> Dear Alistair, >> >> In your hypothetical (and indeed in any practical) case - if an >> evaluator uses WCAG-EM and as a result made a conformance claim then >> any one else evaluating the same page by whatever method should arrive >> at a similar conclusion and thus be able to issue a similar >> conformance claim. >> >> Remember that we are issuing claims for conformance to the guidelines. >> The existence or not of any *particular* technique is not relevant - >> so long as some technique has been used to ensure compliance. For >> example it does not matter whether the engineer has used the <label> >> or <label for="xx"> technique to tie the instruction to the input >> field so long as whichever is used is used correctly. So if the first >> evaluator finds that the <label> element has been used correctly to >> surround both the instruction and input field the second evaluator has >> to do the same. The second evaluator cannot say that the page fails >> because the <label for="xx"> technique has not been used. The >> important thing is that one of the appropriate techniques has been used. >> >> WCAG-EM codifies a procedure which, if followed, will give consistent >> results. However other procedures should give similar results, though >> probably not as well documented or traceable. >> >> Regards >> Richard >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- From: Alistair Garrison >> Sent: Monday, November 18, 2013 4:54 PM >> To: Eval TF >> Subject: Following properly documented existing procedures - A >> hypothetical question? >> >> Dear All, >> >> A hypothetical question. >> >> Scene-setting: >> >> A qualified person has evaluated a single web page and has made a >> report - properly documenting all things asked for in the WCAG-EM. >> They tested the sufficient techniques used by the developers, and all >> relevant failure criteria. They have found no issues in the web >> content in the web page. Based on their report (but as a separate >> additional activity to the WCAG-EM) they have gone on to make a proper >> WCAG 2.0 conformance claim for the single web page. >> >> I have been asked to evaluate the web page above. I find the claim, >> and the supporting evidence. >> >> My question is this - "Am I honour bound to follow the procedure they >> have documented?" >> >> The thought in my head is yes - that I should follow their procedure >> if it is properly documented. I would of course check all relevant >> failure conditions, but if I didn't follow their procedure and started >> to test the page using tests from sufficient techniques I've chosen >> (which have not been used to develop the web content) I might find a >> failure or two - just because they have done things differently. >> >> Any thoughts on the above would be good, as we might have to mention >> the necessity to follow properly documented existing procedures when >> re-evaluating web pages somewhere in our document. >> >> All the best >> >> Alistair >> >> Richard Warren >> Technical Manager >> Website Auditing Limited (Userite) >> http://www.website-accessibility.com >> > > > Richard Warren > Technical Manager > Website Auditing Limited (Userite) > http://www.website-accessibility.com > > > -- 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)
Received on Wednesday, 20 November 2013 08:42:22 UTC