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.


Difference between revisions of "Eval Analysis"

From Education & Outreach
Jump to: navigation, search
(Criteria for checks)
(Criteria for longer list (15 min checks))
Line 126: Line 126:
 
* Easy to understand
 
* Easy to understand
 
* Not complicated issues (not if lots of debate on forums)
 
* Not complicated issues (not if lots of debate on forums)
* Not likely to give false positive or false negative; pass-fail not complex
+
* Pass-fail not complex; Not likely to give false positive or false negative
 
* Checks that clearly related to specific WCAG success criteria
 
* Checks that clearly related to specific WCAG success criteria
* Checks that don't require seeing visual rendering of page
 
 
* ? easy of fixing
 
* ? easy of fixing
 
* ? has good example in BAD
 
* ? has good example in BAD
 +
 +
Might give more weight to some checks that don't require seeing visual rendering of page.
  
 
====Criteria for short list (5 min checks)====
 
====Criteria for short list (5 min checks)====

Revision as of 17:15, 30 November 2012

Nav: EOWG wiki main page
Related pages: Web Accessibility Preliminary Evaluation, Eval in process

Tasks & Use Cases

The following table lists tasks, example user cases with audience, and focus for each document. (Note that we haven't decided whether or not to do a new doc on evaluation in the process.)


task example use cases prelim conform
overview
WCAG-EM process  
Get general idea of accessibility of a webpage (major problems, some issues, maybe OK)
  1. Contractor: I've developed a prototype and I've been asked "is it accessible?" What can I do quickly to check?
  2. Website manager: I got a complaint from a user and want to get an idea of the scope of the accessibility problems on my website.
  3. Website manager: I'm checking out design companies to commission to re-do my website and I want to see if their website is accessible.
  4. Website manager: I commissioned a website that was suppose to meet WCAG. I've just received the first prototype and I want to do a quick check to see how it is on accessibility.
  5. Advocate: I encountered an accessibility barrier trying to use a website and I want to know if there are many other problems or not.
  6. Web content writer, journalist, blogger: I want my pages to be accessible in general so that I can reach the widest audience.
mostly maybe some      
Get an overview of WCAG-EM
  1. Evaluation procurer: We are commissioning a WCAG conformance evaluation and want on overview of WCAG-EM, which we plan to reference in the Request for Tender/Proposals.
  2. @@
maybe lots maybe just a little    
Thorough, authoratative evaluation of WCAG conformance
  1. Web development agency: Our services include providing a full accessibility audit of the new templates (CMS) and all webpages prior to launch.
  2. Accessibility champion or Quality assurance (in a large organization): I need to regularly evaluate new sections and applications before launch.
  3. Independent certification: We need to show that our expert audit service and user testing by people with disabilities meet recognised international standards.
  4. Accessibility Maintenance: We periodically check the accessibility of sections of our website to monitor that we continue to meet our certification status.
  5. Developer: I want to certify that my business website conforms to WCAG 2.0.
  6. Multi-site benchmark study: Our accessibility consulting firm has been hired to evaluate and report on the conformance of 25 governmental websites.
  7. Researcher: I research accessibility, and investigate accessibility issues on multiple sites
  8. Education: I teach students to become web designers, developers or accredited accessibility assessors
  9. Advocate: I need to be able to direct people (eg businesses, information providers) to an authorative resource that they can use to evaluate the conformance of their website to WCAG 2.0

  maybe at first mostly    
Evaluate throughout design and development process
  1. Design specification: We want an independent assessment of high level objects during early stage design planning. We can provide sample use cases, early page mock-ups, wireframes and simple prototypes.
  2. Development Support: Our company provides independent evaluation including from disabled people. This supports development of specific content, new applications and mobile. Reference to WCAG 2.0 AA and agreed elements of AAA.
  3. Developer: I want my sites to be professionally designed and to meet the standards baseline, including WCAG 2.0 AA. To do that effectively I want to review new sections and applications as I go along.
  4. Project manager, designer, developer: I see all these new resources about evaluating websites after they're done — but I need something that applies to a complete redesign.
  5. Developer: I'm developing a new feature (or adding new content) and want to assess progress on specific functions

some     lots  

Notes

  • I have added some extra use cases. I wanted to have different types of websites: large and small websites, whole websites and sets of pages or new sections, and different types of developers/evaluators: inhouse and agency developers, third party evaluation, and also maintenance (I think its important!) I would like to discuss them and any other variations that anyone wants to add. To help discussion I turned the bullets into numbers. Also, I fixed a table format problem that I caused, but not the alignment issue. {Suzette}

Use case for preliminary evaluation

{@@dboudreau - 20120928} First draft - proposal

  • Vendor is commissioned to develop a WCAG 2.0 or Section 508 compliant website
  • Client wants to know if the vendor actually delivered an accessible website, but doesn't have the skill set to really measure it.
  • Client uses the Preliminary Evaluation process (simple tests) to check for basic things like alts, keyboard nav and headings on random pages.
  • Client determines if the website passes those tests or not, based on the tests results.
    • If the website passes those tests, then client or designated technical person digs further with additional informal tests.
    • If the website doesn't pass those tests, then client commissions a technical profile to integrally follow the WCAG-EM methodology.
  • Find and fix - developer, or content editor tests newly added content and fixes commonly occuring missed elements eg text alternatives, form elements, link labels, text resizing and colour contrast prior to release or more in depth evaluation. {Suzette}
  • From Website Accessibility Conformance Evaluation Methodology 1.0. Preliminary is mentioned three times including 1.3, 2.0 and this one: 4.1:"Note: It is recommended to carry out preliminary reviews before carrying out a conformance evaluation to identify obvious errors and to develop a rough understanding of the overall performance of the website."{Suzette}

Preliminary Evaluation Analysis

Audience

Primary audience:

  • Non-technical people with low accessibility knowledge who want a general idea of the level of accessibility of a web page

Secondary audiences:

  • Newbie accessibility evaluators who want to dive in progressively
  • Knowledgeable evaluators who want to run very high level evaluation only

Misc

  • One page — Focus on one web page, as opposed to broader issues of selecting representative pages, etc., which is addressed in WCAG-EM
  • Tool-specific info — For this draft we have some tool-specific guidance. However, there are potential issues with vendor-neutrality and we might need to address this a different way — for example, moving tool-specific guidance to Web Platform Docs or the WAI-Engage wiki where people can easily add tool-specific info.
  • ...

Criteria for checks

These are draft ideas for now; they might change.

Criteria for longer list (15 min checks)

  • Common accessibility barriers (what we see often as mistakes in web pages)
  • Easy to understand
  • Not complicated issues (not if lots of debate on forums)
  • Pass-fail not complex; Not likely to give false positive or false negative
  • Checks that clearly related to specific WCAG success criteria
  •  ? easy of fixing
  •  ? has good example in BAD

Might give more weight to some checks that don't require seeing visual rendering of page.

Criteria for short list (5 min checks)

In addition to above:

  • Do-able with system limitations - does not require downloaded tools or a specific browser
  • ...