RE: WCAG-EM Report Tool

+1



* katie *
 
Katie Haritos-Shea 
Senior Accessibility SME (WCAG/Section 508/ADA/AODA)
 
Cell: 703-371-5545 | ryladog@gmail.com | Oakton, VA | LinkedIn Profile |
Office: 703-371-5545

-----Original Message-----
From: Emmanuelle Gutiérrez y Restrepo [mailto:emmanuelle@sidar.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2014 7:04 AM
To: 'Wilco Fiers'; 'Gavin Evans'; 'WebKeyIT'
Cc: 'Shadi Abou-Zahra'; 'Eval TF'
Subject: RE: WCAG-EM Report Tool

I agree with Wilco.

"Cannot tell" is very useful.

Best,

Emmanuelle Gutiérrez y Restrepo
Patrono y Directora General
Fundación Sidar - Acceso Universal
Email: coordina@sidar.org
Personal: Emmanuelle@sidar.org
Web: http://sidar.org


-----Mensaje original-----
De: Wilco Fiers [mailto:w.fiers@accessibility.nl] Enviado el: martes, 12 de
agosto de 2014 10:23
Para: Gavin Evans; WebKeyIT
CC: Shadi Abou-Zahra; Eval TF
Asunto: RE: WCAG-EM Report Tool

Hi everyone,

Interesting discussion! I've also had the following issue suggested on
Github:
https://github.com/w3c/wcag-em-report-tool/issues/69

Renaming Untested to Not checked and Inapplicable to Not present seems like
a good idea to me. I don't think Cannot tell should be removed though. Of
course in the final report, if there is some criterion set to Cannot tell
then the website wasn't fully audited, which should be clearly indicated.
But there are quite a few scenarios in which a criterion can be set to
Cannot tell. The main one I think would be if initial data was generated by
an external source. Tools that test part of a criterion shouldn't report
that criterion as passed or failed, but as failed or cannot tell. And
because Cannot tell is part of EARL it's quite plausible that tools will
provide this result.

If nothing else, at least it should be shown if this is the case. Another
use case would be when multiple evaluators work on the same audit. A junior
auditor could use t his to distinguish between what they are sure of and
what should be checked by a senior auditor.

My proposal would be to leave it in and to add a clear message in the report
when not all criterion are answered with pass/fail/not present.

Wilco
________________________________________
Van: Gavin Evans [gavin.evans@digitalaccessibilitycentre.org]
Verzonden: dinsdag 12 augustus 2014 9:30
Aan: WebKeyIT
CC: Shadi Abou-Zahra; Eval TF; Wilco Fiers
Onderwerp: Re: WCAG-EM Report Tool

Hi Vivienne/Shadi,

So I just had a thought.

Vivienne wrote:
"That is why we have had to change our reporting and its something we argued
back and forth with the group.  I agree with the idea (as did Detlev and
others) that if it isn't there, how can it pass, but the above is pretty
clear.  That it is isn't there, it is a pass"

While I understand the clarity obtained from awarding a 'Pass' there are
times when an evaluator/developer/web manager would be sometimes confused if
they awarded a "pass" for a specific area and then, after evaluating the
same page 6 months down the line and it failed.

However the reason for this could well have been because the site had been
updated within the last six months and implemented newer technology that may
not have been tested.

I think that there should be a clear indicator somewhere that, although
"passes" did not contain any technology that conformed to the success
criteria.

Kindest Regards,

Gavin Evans
Director of Operations | DAC
Mob: 07936 685804
Twitter: @GavinAEvans @DACcessibility
www.digitalaccessibilitycentre.org<http://www.digitalaccessibilitycentre.org
/>
www.accessin.org<http://www.accessin.org/>

On 12 Aug 2014, at 07:54, "WebKeyIT"
<v.conway@webkeyit.com<mailto:v.conway@webkeyit.com>> wrote:

Hi Shadi

I thought that WCAG-EM was pretty clear that it could only be a pass or fail
in accordance with the Conformance Requirements statement of WCAG 2.0 :
http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#conformance-reqs:



What does conformance mean?

Conformance to a standard means that you meet or satisfy the 'requirements'
of the standard. In WCAG 2.0 the 'requirements' are the Success Criteria. To
conform to WCAG 2.0, you need to satisfy the Success Criteria, that is,
there is no content which violates the Success Criteria.


Note: This means that if there is no content to which a success criterion
applies, the success criterion is satisfied.

Most standards only have one level of conformance. In order to accommodate
different situations that may require or allow greater levels of
accessibility than others, WCAG 2.0 has three levels of conformance, and
therefore, three levels of Success Criteria.




That is why we have had to change our reporting and its something we argued
back and forth with the group.  I agree with the idea (as did Detlev and
others) that if it isn't there, how can it pass, but the above is pretty
clear.  That it is isn't there, it is a pass.

Regards,

Vivienne Conway, B.IT (Hons), MACS CT, AALIA(CS) Director

Web Key IT Pty Ltd
PO BOX 681 Wanneroo, WA 6946
M    0415 383 673   F   (08) 9325 6422

E      v.conway@webkeyit.com<mailto:v.conway@webkeyit.com>
W    www.webkeyit.com<http://www.webkeyit.com>




This communication, including any attachments, is intended solely for the
named addressee. It is confidential and may be subject to legal professional
privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact me
immediately by reply email, delete it from your system and destroy any
copies. This email is subject to copyright, no part of it should be
reproduced, adapted or transmitted without the prior written consent of the
copyright owner. Any views expressed in this message are those of the
individual sender and may not necessarily reflect the views of Web Key IT
Pty Ltd.

-----Original Message-----
From: Shadi Abou-Zahra [mailto:shadi@w3.org]
Sent: Tuesday, 12 August 2014 2:18 PM
To: WebKeyIT; 'Eval TF'
Cc: 'Wilco Fiers'
Subject: Re: WCAG-EM Report Tool

Hi Vivienne,

Good point. I think we need to change "inapplicable" to "not present" to
match WCAG-EM terminology, and remove "cannot tell" from the list. Note that
"untested" is not really a result. Maybe we should rename that to "not
checked" or such to make it more apparent.

Thanks,
  Shadi


On 12.8.2014 04:31, WebKeyIT wrote:
HI Shadi

In looking over the document, I see that one of the issues we faced with
WCAG-EM is a problem here.  In the Audit Sample Tag (4), in the dropdown box
for the 'results for the entire sample", there are options
for:
- untested
- fail
-pass
-cannot tell
-inapplicable

We agreed in WCAG-EM that because WCAG does not allow anything except
true/false, pass/fail that we could not allow these extra items into the
report and still be able to say that WCAG-EM was used for the evaluation.
This is something we have just gone through own reporting and removed as we
had:
-pass
-fail
-conditional pass (just for somethings that were small and not technically a
failure)
- n/a (for items not there such as multimedia)
- nt (not tested) for items such as interruptions we could not be tested
without access to onsite resources

I would suggest that as we had to adjust WCAG-EM for just pass/fail, that
this should also be changed in the WCAG-EM Reporter to be consistent.


Regards,

Vivienne Conway, B.IT (Hons), MACS CT, AALIA(CS) Director

Web Key IT Pty Ltd
PO BOX 681 Wanneroo, WA 6946
M    0415 383 673   F   (08) 9325 6422

E      v.conway@webkeyit.com<mailto:v.conway@webkeyit.com>
W    www.webkeyit.com<http://www.webkeyit.com>




This communication, including any attachments, is intended solely for the
named addressee. It is confidential and may be subject to legal professional
privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact me
immediately by reply email, delete it from your system and destroy any
copies. This email is subject to copyright, no part of it should be
reproduced, adapted or transmitted without the prior written consent of the
copyright owner. Any views expressed in this message are those of the
individual sender and may not necessarily reflect the views of Web Key IT
Pty Ltd.

-----Original Message-----
From: Shadi Abou-Zahra [mailto:shadi@w3.org]
Sent: Thursday, 31 July 2014 9:51 PM
To: Eval TF
Cc: Wilco Fiers
Subject: WCAG-EM Report Tool

Dear Eval TF,

You may be interested to know about the "WCAG-EM Report Tool"
currently being developed through the Education and Outreach Working Group
(EOWG):
  - http://w3c.github.io/wcag-em-report-tool/dist/

This tool is currently an early prototype but we welcome your comments at
this stage already. Please send comments to this list or preferably add them
directly to the issues list on GitHub:
  - https://github.com/w3c/wcag-em-report-tool/issues

Let us know if you have any questions.

Regards,
   Shadi

--
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)



--
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 Tuesday, 12 August 2014 13:40:40 UTC