- EOWG - template for accessibility evaluation reports

Change Log Template for Accessibility Evaluation Reports

Change requests from 4 October 2002

1. Separate template itself onto new page
2. Add an "about this template" link back to intro
3. Also make it downloadable
4. Explain usage rights
5. Put a little TOC preview on first page
6. Change the headers: Writing an Accessibility Evaluation Report; on the doc: "Template for...."
7. Shift name & URL a bit later, prefaced by ....:
8. ;... detailed review results are available.
9. for URL's excluded, add: explain why
10. Exact date(s) on which review conducted
11. Reference the evaluation procedures in the conformance evaluation section
12. Change "used checklist" to "based upon checklist"
13. [Description of manual reviews (usability testing of accessibility features) used] and "Description of manual reviews and usability testing of accessibility features"
14. [include links to WCAG 1.0 Checkpoints, and to the Techniques for all non-conformant items] 
15. 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

1. [NOT YET] Make the template downloadable in HTML and RTF
2. [HR FOR NOW] Separate off the template with a field set or border
3. [CLARIFY CHANGE REQUEST] If a review team, must agree on which items using... 
4. [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)
5. [NOT YET] Ideally, have an example of how the template is used
6. [DONE] Document looks needed; general approach looks good; update document header and status.
7. [DONE] Keep the explanatory material, but draft suggested sentences, short & simple
8. [DONE] Retain Section #1 but title Background about evaluation
   
9. [DONE] Doc intro remind people that this stuff is suggested depending the context.
10. [DONE] Add an executive summary (careful, should only repeat what is elsewhere) just under nav bar, including purpose, meth, major findings, for further study.
11. [DONE] Change URI to URL
12. [DONE] Suggest adding a brief description of site where appropriate [find a way to indicate that some areas are more optional than others]
13. [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.
14. [DONE] Indicate whether manual and/or automated review
15. [DONE] Clarify natural language on section #4
16. [DONE] Organize contact info together in section #4
17. [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)
18. [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.
19. [DONE] Clarify that a checklist is essential and people have to do the whole thing, put it second on list, right after identifying site
20. [DONE] Provide links to detailed evaluation results in an appendix, not in the body of the report
21. [DONE] Include some description of how close they might be to a conformance level, also describe what they do well
22. [DONE] Maintain summary sections but combine review results and recommended actions
23. [DONE] Keep general references section in place
24. [DONE] Have the wcag checklist be the organizing principle for the results
25. [DONE] Go ahead and provide the boilerplate for the general references section