Review of Web Site Accessibility -- Planning
Goal | Approach | Who's Interested | Review Lists
| Gallery | Background
Last updated August 9, 2002 by Judy Brewer (jbrewer @ w3.org) -- but most
info still from January 20, 2000
Original draft incorporates material developed by Sylvie Duchateau and Dominique
Burger -- more detail in background
There is an increasing need for human review of Web site accessibility
to augment semi-automatic accessibility checkers. WAI's Education and Outreach
Working Group (EOWG) is collecting information and ideas in this planning
document on how to establish consistent review methods. Please comment on
this document to wai-eo-editors @w3.org. EOWG will develop a separate document
describing recommended review team process.
New info from july 30 2002:
[This new information needs to be integrated into the planning approach described
in this document]
- do you have to have a team? team encouraged but not mandatory; indicate
- are we advising or setting a baseline? we are advising on a baseline
- what does audience need? they need 1. to know what skills they ought
to have 2. where to get training 3. what to look for in human eval/review
- what does wai need feedback on? 1. eval doc 2. wcag 2.0 3. earl implementations
in eval tools 4. galleries 5. what review skills and experience really is
required, given a certain level of resources within an organization
- what is the relationship between this document and the eval doc? this
doc supports eval & vice versa; eval is what/how to eval; this doc is
- how much effort wai put in? 1 this document 2 update according to
feedback [3 provide training on eval 4 we provide some feedback on some
evals and/or coordinate cross-review]
- disclaimer? yes, go ahead
- how to structure the doc? skills, experiences, references links to
pwd doc, definition of review team, knowledge of conf stds, undsting of usability,
awareness of strengths & weaknesses of auto eval tools, practical exp
of sr sw & eval tech & other at's, knowledge of relevant at, what
you start with -- how to find ingredients -- how you put it together...
substitutions (e.g. how to do it solo, or with buttermilk & vinegar),
benchmark training requirements, objectives, recommended reading, conflict
resolution.... , measuring tools.
what level of eval are we talking about? conformance....
NOTE: This is a draft! Addresses, document names, and processes
introduced in this document may change.
Develop a recommended process for WCAG-conformant reviews, and provide
enough support to enable a variety of review groups to form, to utilize
this process, and deliver reliable and consistent results. Note that the
development of a WAI
Gallery is addressed separately. Here's how we might do this (the following
items could all move forward at the same time): [Caution: the
approaches described below are old material, and may change.]
- [20020809 Check, what is the status of that document? Still relevant?
Still under development?] Encourage development of the "Techniques for Evaluation..." document (being
worked on in the Eval & Repair Interest Group) to provide a standard
reference for interpreting WCAG in Web site assessment;
- [20020809 Change to implementation of EARL?} Encourage development
of tools that implement the "Techniques for Evaluation..."
- [20020809 Change: drop encouragement for development of this, due
to problems in approach] Beta-test and encourage finalization of the
Web Accessibility Report Tool,
and translations of it, so that it will be available to review teams;
- [20020809 Probably not do this except as a communication mechanism
between teams] Develop a public "wai-review" list to which
Web masters could submit their sites for informal, unofficial review
and comment, and on which individual reviewers unaffiliated with any
review team could provide review input.
- [20020809 DONE] Develop a "How to Review Web Sites for Accessibility"
document (a W3C Note?) that describes a consistent process for reviewing
sites, for example: test with multiple browsers; test with multiple input
and output devices e.g. speech recognition, speech output, no mouse, etc.;
run it through text emulators; use semi-automatic accessibility checkers;
check source code; have people with different disabilities use the site.
The document should specify a minimum test suite that would constitute
a "WAI-approved" review process. This document would need to be jointly
developed and approved by the Education
& Outreach Working Group, the Evaluation and Repair Interest Group,
and the Web Content Guidelines Working
Group. The review process should be tested by several groups on the
same sites to ensure consistent results. It should address questions such
as how to review very large sites as well as small sites. The process
should specify how to communicate review results, including how to handle
observations that may not be covered by WCAG 1.0.
- [20020809 Yes, this is highest priority in this area now] Develop
a description of Review Teams, and encourage their formation:
- Review Teams could be groups of people who work together on
Web site reviews using the process described in "How to Review Web
Sites for Accessibility."
- Review Teams could be made up of e-mail affiliations of individuals,
or co-workers within a workplace; they could be volunteers, or from a non-profit
organization, or doing review on a fee-for-service basis; in other words
they could operate under a variety of business models.
- Review Teams would ideally be composed of people with a variety
of skills and perspectives, e.g. including knowledge of HTML, CSS, etc.;
of WCAG 1.0; of assistive technologies; different disability-related functional
requirements; and Web design.
- Review Teams would need their own local mailing list in whatever
language they work in.
- Review Teams would periodically nominate sites into the WAI
- Review Teams would communicate any evaluation problems they
found to the Web Content Guidelines Working
Group and the Evaluation and Repair
Interest Group through the Review Team Coordination Group.
- Review Teams would be responsible for responding to a certain
number of review requests for WAI Gallery nominations
- [20020809 Do not do this; too resource intensive; however, provide
for some informal communication between teams] Host a Review Team
Coordination Group. One requirement of the "WAI-approved" review
process would be that a "WAI-approved" Review Team
would need to have one member of their group be "in good standing" (active) on
the Review Team Coordination Group managed by WAI (possibly
under the Evaluation and Repair Interest Group?), so as to remain up-to-date
on improvements or problems identified in review methods, and to ensure
that feedback from the review process gets channeled to the appropriate
WAI groups. This coordination group would also ensure periodic testing
of evaluation methods by different review teams on the same set of Web
sites, and make proposals for additional support or development activities
such as on-line or face-to-face training, and technical reference materials.
- [[20020809 Yes still do this] Contribute to the development of
the "WAI Gallery," by ensuring ways for review groups
to nominate sites into the Gallery, and ensuring development of criteria
for Gallery inclusion, and rotating of Gallery contents.
[20020809 Note that this list is very outdated, and may not be
maintained in a similar format]
The following individuals and organizations have expressed interest in helping
to develop review groups or in performing reviews. If you would like your
name to be added, please contact email@example.com.
Expression of interest here does not imply an endorsement of an individual
or group's review expertise.
- Charles McCathieNevile -- W3C
- Chuck Letourneau, --Starling Access Services
- Alan Cantor -- Cantor + Associates
- Sylvie Duchateau, Dominique Burger -- BrailleNet
- United Kingdom
- United States
- Gregory Rosmaita
- Harvey Bingham
- Karl Hebenstreit -- GSA
- Ian Jacobs -- W3C
- Nir Dagan
For more detail go to "Approach" above, but here's
- We would set up a public firstname.lastname@example.org list for informal
comment, as described above under "approach."
- Individual review teams would set up public or private local
lists for their work.
- There would be a private coordination list among Review Teams
using the recommended WAI evaluation process.
The concept for a WAI Gallery is described
separately; however there would be close coordination between these two areas.
2000-2002, W3C (MIT, INRIA,
Keio ), All Rights Reserved. W3C liability,
document use and
software licensing rules
apply. Your interactions with this site are in accordance with our public and Member privacy