| EOWG Home Page
Change Log -- Review Process & Plan for Web Accessibility
This page records change requests and changes made to dated versions
of the WAI Resource Review of Web Site Accessibility.
Please send additions or corrections to firstname.lastname@example.org. Last updated
6 December 2002 by Judy Brewer (jbrewer @w3.org).
Change requests from 6 December 2002 discussion
- Discussion of Review Teams for
Evaluating Web Site Accessibility
- Clarify: "among the members of the review team, there should be the
- Break up: "expertise (unbulleted)" "core resources" "additional resources
and training materials" ...Core resources: WCAG 1.0; Conformance Evaluation;
How People with Disabilities Use the Web
Change requests from 11 October 2002 discussion
- Discussion of Review Teams
for Evaluating Web Site Accessibility, last updated 6 September 2002
- (Communicate...) delete first phrase, "depending upon type of review"
- (Coordinate...) substitute: "and for developing one coordinated
summary of the review report"
- (Reference...) cite & link to _all_ checkpoints; and to any
techniques that may help correct non-conformant markup
- (Reference...) refer to the template for evaluations
- (Reference...) clean up the grammar (don't end w/ "to")
- (Reference...) substitute "explain results by refering to specific
- (Compare...) add "through activities such as contributing reviews
to efforts such as the WAI Gallery where review reports from multiple organizations
are compared, or those to contests in which review reports are carefully evaluated."
- (Compare...) jb take an action item to talk w/ wac on eventual use
of integrated test suite as a comparison review target for review teams, e.g.
produce a sample filled-up template report for the test suite site.
- (Compare...) still encourage them to compare results, but clarify
privacy concerns... competitive commercial and non-commercial organizations
comparing reviews occasionally
- (Compare...) continue to improve the process of taking in &
and comparing different reviews for the Gallery, and even giving feedback
on the review reports
- (Provide feedback to WAI... ) clarify that this is feedback to WAI
- (Provide feedback...) look into cleaning up WAI comment & question
lists. public-wai-question, private-wai-comment
- (Provide feedback...) clean up wai-site-comments redirect to...
- (Provide feedback...) give them option of wai-eo-editors for public
comment and email@example.com for private comment
- (Provide feedback...) rather than listing names of documents right
in this section, point to reference documents at bottom
- (Provide feedback...) eventually move feedback options off-page,
or if simple, do it now.
- (Nominate....) cut down the text here, and point over to the Gallery;
where it would ask people to state whether the review was done with a review
team according to this document.
- (In general...) provide more plugs for making review teams and for
nominating sites for the WAI Gallery? put those at the bottom of pages.
- (In general...) adding this to the overall participation page, (fix
the link to the participation page!!)
- (In general...) add mention of review teams & gallery nominations
judiciously to certain pages
- (In general...) consider this on any page that we write... but as
standard, add a feedback page and a participation link at the bottom.
- (overall) clean up headers, footers, nav bars, style sheet, update
- (overall) tie this in (and explain) as a sub-page to the evaluation
- (Communication...) clarify that we encourage people referencing
this doc & eval document when describing the process they use, however
to make clear that this doesn't imply W3C endorsement.
- (Expertise...) clarify that the team as a whole should have this
expertise, not each individual... complementary
Change requests from 16 August 2002 discussion
- Discussion of initial draft of Review Teams for Evaluating
Web Site Accessibility:
- [DONE] Explain that the doc doesn't address repair teams.
- [DONE] Shorten and clarify non-normative disclaimer.
- [DONE] In intro to composition of review teams, make it more concise.
- [DONE] Combine "composition" and "training" sections into "expertise"
- [DONE] Provide more emphasis for what document does do rather than
- [DONE] Say something more directly about including people with
disabilities directly in the review team.
- Re-examine document from the perspective of roles [CC will provide
- Explain the importance of giving specific results so that the
person repairing the document can do so effectively.
- Once available, link to template pages, where relevant, from within
the results report, to show whoevers going to be repairing a site how it
can be done.
- Set off disclaimers from rest of text.
- Need to address the people side more.
- If developing a document on repair approaches at some point:
- encourage development of templates for key pages
- When next updating the evaluating Web sites document:
- consider developing a template for feedback
- Discussion of possibilities for certification program for evaluation
of Web accessibility
- What is the need for certification? What would the impact
of certification be?
- what impact? (and what relation to marketing needs of evaluation
centre, and/or of the Web site itself, motivation)
- what is the impact of offering certification at a low
level of accessibility?
- Web designers want certification in order to market
themselves as guaranteed-accessible designers
- in order to ensure quality of evaluations
- Who or what might be certified?
- what kind of certification? (site/product, process,
- Separate certif for people doing eval vs. production?
- what about the certification of tools that are producing
- To what extent can an EARL wrapper for a set of tools
help w/ the eval process?
- How would a product/site, person/organization, or process be
- who should be expected to be participating in the review
- What is impact of certification on a periodic evaluation??????
Does this have to be a mandatory part of the package?
- who trains and who certifies the certified evaluators?
How does one know that those people are still with that organization?
- the testing criteria should be verifiable
- what level of confidence in the certified evaluation?
& how (eg iso9000) and/or other processes parallel to iso?
- What considerations would there be within a certification process?
- what is the goal or essential claim of any certification
process? what are we certifying it to do?
- what level of granularity? (intermediate levels between
Level A, AA, AAA?)
- would some type of objective reference point be helpful?
- How handle evaluation of large scale Web sites?
- What should the tone of the evaluation reports be --
how severe/friendly? how much involvement early on? how much follow-up
when telling them what doesn't work?
- How would certification fit w/ procurement legislation?
- What kind of coordination?
- What level of coordination w/ QA conformance framework?
- What degree of coordination with formal standards bodies
that could approve a process?
- If one country's gov't starts proc of setting up testing
criteria, how can coordination happen there?
- Other related possibilities?
- How relate to evaluation in contests?
- What is the role of cost in this, or not? what is the
price of certification, or not?
- What is W3C's role, or not?
- What is the level of publicness or confidentiality
- could their be a logo library for assertions?
- How educate people about the realities/complexities
of evaluating Web sites
- ACTION ITEMS
- EV: Will check out the sharability of some certification thoughts
from the NL
Change requests from Oct 6, 2000 discussion
- explicitly downplay the use of tools OR encourage use of tools
especially when doing a deep site, to be sure to get a more comprehensive
cross-section AND to encourage use of tools for initial education...
- emphasize the importance of using multiple tools if you use
- pay attention to the date of a site and the date of evaluation
- note whether Web master address is there
- select: yes. need to scope out. selecting strategic pages, figuring
out most freq visited pages
- explain more about validators & link to them. itemize steps...
- provide warnings for known problems (such as database generated
- what about a form to fill out for the report... (looked at wai
report, needs much more work)
- develop a resource suite, which includes 2 diff levels of "how
to's" and then which re-organizes the tool listings from current ERWG
- set up review list;
- have common code of conduct;
- reviews state what process level (ref WAI process) they've
- have a home page that explains mutual expectations
- create disincentives to review (for, public posting of results)
- no guarantee your site will be reviewed
- internal priorities about what kind of sites to help
- and brief summary of external priorities
- request phone # but not requirement
- disclaimers on the reviews