Important note: This Wiki page is edited by participants of the EOWG. It does not necessarily represent consensus and it may have incorrect information or information that is not supported by other Working Group participants, WAI, or W3C. It may also have some very useful information.


Talk:Archived Work on PreLimEval

From Education & Outreach
Jump to: navigation, search

{Audience, Tasks, Use cases moved to Eval Analysis}

Positioning

Open Issues:

Context:

References and version notes:

  • EOWG minutes
  • 23 march when Ian added "browser-based tests" from Al Duggin

Comments

7 elements

Here are the seven elements I always get people to test on first, because they're so basic and easy to check:
{— I seem to recall we said let's look at 5 things you can do in 5 minutes with no tools. if that is the case, I suggest the following~Sharron}

  • Text equivalents for non-text content
  • Content structure and semantics
  • Color use and contrasts

{— delete color/contrast because you would need tools. ~Sharron}

  • Form fields and labels

{— delete forms because you would need tools. ~Sharron}

  • Keyboard navigation
  • Significant hyperlinks
  • Language identification


Maybe we should focus on something like that for a document such as this. ~ 13 April 2012 Denis
{— That would leave 5 things but I can think of a few other no-tool checks that could be done like - properly working skip navigation, resize/reflow, page titles (or is that part of semantics, above?) ~Sharron}
{— Text resize is easy to check - even if different browsers behave differently. Could add an eyeball check of colour contrast by looking for instances of light text on light background eg grey text, or green text on green backgounds seem popular currently, or dark text on dark background. ~Suzette}

levels

I think we should consider different levels, e.g.:

  1. a 5 to 15-minute check that anyone can do -- e.g., run free onlin eval tool(s), increase text size, turn off images...
  2. a long check that requires a little more knowledge

Use case for preliminary evaluation

moved to Eval Analysis

Suggested outline for document rewrite

{@@dboudreau - 20120928}: The outline I would wish for this document is pretty clear in my head, but I'm totally open to suggestions.
This seems like an outline for the Conformance Eval page. I think we want the Preliminary Eval page to be much shorter and simpler. {Shawn}

  • Explaining how this Preliminary Evaluation methodology fits into to WCAG-EM,
    {— how about more broadly how it fits with all the other WAI resources on evaluation?. ~Shawn}
  • Defining target audience for this type of evaluation (non-technical for the most part),
    {— think can be done in one sentence. ~Shawn}
  • Defining the need/scope for preliminary evaluations (high level measure of accessibility),
    {— think can be done in one or two sentences. ~Shawn}
  • Selecting representative sample pages, objects, functionalities or critical paths,
    {— maybe not needed in this doc - instead can point to that section in the Conformance overview page. ~Shawn}
  • Defining which elements (or SC) should be checked for as a "first step",
  • Choosing the related success criteria and explaining how to test for them,
    {— Maybe downplay "success criteria" - some in target audience won't know that that is - maybe want to encourage them to learn at the end, but at the beginning, can we assume no knowledge of SC (and not need to learn in order to under most of this page?. ~Shawn}
  • Presenting free tools (mostly, FF or IE extensions) used to run these tests,
    {— rememeber issues with listing specific tools. feel free to suggest approaches on this :-) ~Shawn}
  • Summarizing obtained results in a comprehensive format,
    {— maybe not needed in this doc - instead can point to that section in the Conformance overview page. ~Shawn}
  • Closing with references to WCAG-EM, so people can keep moving forward.
    {— I think next step would be the Conformance overview page, then WCAG-EM. ~Shawn}

While keeping in mind that is meant for three types of audiences.


Notes to keep in mind

{@@shawn - email comments from 20120927}

Here are the minutes from when we last discussed it (I think - maybe we did again since them?): <http://www.w3.org/2012/03/23-eo-minutes>

Next steps are:

  1. Do a mini-analysis of the Audience, Goals, etc. in the wiki Discussion tab at: <http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/Talk:Web_Accessibility_Preliminary_Evaluation> -- moved to Eval Analysis
  2. Do a rough concept draft for new structure and content in the wiki page. Remember that you are welcome to start from scratch -- no need to keep any of the old info or structure.

(So we don't lose it, I put the old stuff & info from Ian's colleague at: <http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/Preliminary_Eval_-_old_notes>)

I think it would be good for EOWG have a chance to review a first pass at 1 & 2 before we discuss it in a telecon. Perhaps next week? :-)

(coupla quick comments on Denis' outline below: -- suggest keeping this short and focused, and pointing elsewhere for more info. -- remember we will have an issue with listing specific tools due to vendor neutrality. Feel free to suggest approaches for addressing that...)