Re: Draft "How To" document on evaluating a user agent for implementation of UAAG requirements available

It seems that for every checkpoint there would be the following potential 
sources of implementation information:
1. Testing with format specific test suites
2. Developer claims based on user documentation
3. Developer claims based on developer documentation
4. Developer claims based on interaction with an evaluator
5. Validation of developer claims through user interface testing of claimed 
6. Evaluator exploratory experience of using the user agent
7. Determining if the checkpoint is applicable to the formats to be 
included in the evaluation

Is this the outline of the "How To" document that you invision?


At 03:40 PM 10/5/2001 -0400, Ian B. Jacobs wrote:
>Jon Gunderson wrote:
> >
> > I have posted an initial draft of a document titled "How To Perform a User
> > Agent Evaluation for the Implementation Report"[1].  I have done the first
> > couple priority one checkpoints.  Please review and tell me if you thing
> > this type of information is useful or that something more or different is
> > needed.
>Hi Jon,
>Thank you for getting started on this resource. There is an
>interesting mix of information in it, which I would like to
>try to classify:
>  1) "Normative" information that is format-specific. For example,
>     for checkpoint 1.2, you have enumerated most or all of the
>     event handler attributes. This is exactly the type of
>     information that will end up in the test suite test files.
>     Whether there is one test file per attribute or some other
>     level of granularity will be something we play with.
>  2) Tips on where to look for information. For instance, for
>     the first bullet of 1.1, you wrote: "Check to see if the
>     index or table of contents for keyboard or short cut references."
>     This is indeed a good tip for figuring out where one might
>     find information about keyboard shortcuts.
>     Another tip in 1.2 is to "ask the developer".
>Both types of information are useful, and I think of them
>as ultimately being housed in two different places:
>1) The test suite would include all of the format-specific
>    "normative" parts. We have yet to discuss what "normative"
>    means here: if the UAWG says that conditional content in
>    the case of HTML is a specific list of elements and attributes,
>    in what way is that normative for conformance to UAAG 1.0
>    (which is not format-specific)? I suspect that one answer
>    to this question is "you can conform to the test suite as well
>    as to UAAG 1.0".
>2) The "How to Evaluate a User Agent" document would discuss
>    things more along the lines of "where do I find this out?"
>    I have been thinking for some time that it would be useful
>    to set expectations by organizing the checkpoints into at
>    least the following groups:
>    a) Checkpoints that can be "instantiated" for a format (e.g., HTML).
>     Clearly 2.3 (conditional content) is one, and probably most of the
>     checkpoints that are "for content" would fall into this category.
>     These checkpoints, I suspect, lend themselves most readily to
>     a test suite framework.
>    b) Checkpoints that are likely to require input from the software
>     developer, which may take many forms: discussion with the developer,
>     documentation, assertions from Web sites, etc
>     Checkpoint 1.1 (keyboard access) is an interesting case because
>     it's for both content and the user interface. So it would be
>     to provide test cases (e.g., for HTML, accesskey and tabindex
>     but for UI functionalities, it will probably be necessary to get
>     assertions from developers. Are these assertions sufficient? To date
>     I have thought that they are, though always subject to change if
>     the assertion proves incomplete or mistaken.
>    c) Checkpoints that are external references. A number of checkpoints
>     to conformance to external resources, whether W3C specifications or
>     operating system conventions. For example, for checkpoint 12.1, in
>     to gauge conformance in UAAG 1.0, it will be necessary to assess
>     conformance to another specification (WCAG 1.0). This probably
>     set of checkpoints where developer will be at least helpful and at
>     indispensible.
>I think it's important for the UAWG to write down what's in our head
>for all the types of checkpoints. Mickey made the point well in a
>that he didn't know what the "standards" were. The proposed test suite
>and other materials (such as implementation reports that are useful for
>comparisons) will help answer "What does this mean in the case of SMIL
>During this week's teleconference, I mentioned a possible test suite
>framework where one could select a few options (e.g., "I want a test
>for HTML 4.0") and press a button and generate a format-specific test
>suite. This would make it easier to do an evaluation for a give format
>it would probably eliminate some inapplicable checkpoints.
>I think that in general, it's helpful to remind developers that
>conformance is possible for some subsets of all the checkpoints. For
>reason, when doing an evaluation, it's useful to look at, say content
>up front and to eliminate one or more groups of checkpoints right away.
>"Since you are not trying to conform for synthesized speech output, you
>ignore the speech checkpoints of Guideline 4."
>Another useful tip: use the checklist: the priority one checkpoints
>are listed first, so you can cover the most important requirements
>first. If a developer understands that a user agent satisfied most of
>the (applicable) priority one checkpoints, the developer may be
>inspired to go for the rest.
>Summary: The "how to evaluate" document should talk about the process
>of doing an evaluation. The test suite should include the details
>(mostly format-specific details) that should be consulted as the
>reviewer carries out the process. For this reason, I don't think the
>"how to evaluate" document should include the full list of checkpoints.
>  - It should have pointers to the document, checklist, and
>    Techniques Document.
>  - It should have pointers to the test suite (which does not yet exist).
>  - Checkpoints should be used as examples (as I've done above).
>  - The example of how to conduct and evaluation that is part
>    of section 3.1 of the Guidelines should be developed in more
>    detail in the how to evaluate document.
>I look forward to making this an extremely valuable resource.
>Thanks again Jon!
>  - Ian
> > [1]
>Ian Jacobs (
>Tel:                     +1 718 260-9447

Jon Gunderson, Ph.D., ATP
Coordinator of Assistive Communication and Information Technology
Division of Rehabilitation - Education Services
College of Applied Life Studies
University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign
1207 S. Oak Street, Champaign, IL  61820

Voice: (217) 244-5870
Fax: (217) 333-0248



Received on Thursday, 11 October 2001 13:13:27 UTC