- EOWG - template
for accessibility evaluation reports
Change Log Template for Accessibility Evaluation Reports
Last updated 4 October 2002 by jbrewer @ w3.org
Change requests from 4 October 2002
- Separate template itself onto new page
- Add an "about this template" link back to intro
- Also make it downloadable
- Explain usage rights
- Put a little TOC preview on first page
- Change the headers: Writing an Accessibility Evaluation Report; on
the doc: "Template for...."
- Shift name & URL a bit later, prefaced by ....:
- ;... detailed review results are available.
- for URL's excluded, add: explain why
- Exact date(s) on which review conducted
- Reference the evaluation procedures in the conformance evaluation section
- Change "used checklist" to "based upon checklist"
- [Description of manual reviews (usability testing of accessibility
features) used] and "Description of manual reviews and usability testing
of accessibility features"
- [include links to WCAG 1.0 Checkpoints, and to the Techniques for all
- Depending on the context, the reviewer may want to suggest on-going
monitoring, develop of internal review teams, re-examining software, etc.
Change requests from 27 September 2002
- [NOT YET] Make the template downloadable in HTML and RTF
- [HR FOR NOW] Separate off the template with a field set or border
- [CLARIFY CHANGE REQUEST] If a review team, must agree on which items
- [NOT STABLE ENOUGH YET] Describe with reference to review team process
description... make this section a checklist... (for internal, you may want
to write up a checklist)
- [NOT YET] Ideally, have an example of how the template is used
- [DONE] Document looks needed; general approach looks good; update
document header and status.
- [DONE] Keep the explanatory material, but draft suggested sentences,
short & simple
- [DONE] Retain Section #1 but title Background about evaluation
- [DONE] Doc intro remind people that this stuff is suggested depending
- [DONE] Add an executive summary (careful, should only repeat what
is elsewhere) just under nav bar, including purpose, meth, major findings,
for further study.
- [DONE] Change URI to URL
- [DONE] Suggest adding a brief description of site where appropriate
[find a way to indicate that some areas are more optional than others]
- [DONE] Split "URL's excluded and included" into separate items,
start with what included, and then what excluded (can list at the subsite
level). For dynamic sites, provide some screen captures. When helpful and
feasible include screen captures to demonstrate what was reviewed.
- [DONE] Indicate whether manual and/or automated review
- [DONE] Clarify natural language on section #4
- [DONE] Organize contact info together in section #4
- [DONE] Provide reference link to suggested areas of expertise in review
team descriptions, areas of expertise as described in such & such document
(try to write in a non-constraining way)
- [DONE] Clarify what kind of manual reviews completed, description
of manual processes undertaken, browser tests etc... point to eval doc...
"usability testing of accessibility features" --- with a link to explanation.
- [DONE] Clarify that a checklist is essential and people have to do
the whole thing, put it second on list, right after identifying site
- [DONE] Provide links to detailed evaluation results in an appendix,
not in the body of the report
- [DONE] Include some description of how close they might be to a conformance
level, also describe what they do well
- [DONE] Maintain summary sections but combine review results and recommended
- [DONE] Keep general references section in place
- [DONE] Have the wcag checklist be the organizing principle for the
- [DONE] Go ahead and provide the boilerplate for the general references
Last updated 30 September, 2002 by Judy Brewer (jbrewer @ w3.org)
2000-2002, W3C (MIT, INRIA,
Keio ), All Rights Reserved. W3C liability,
document use and
rules apply. Your interactions with this site are in accordance with