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 "Talk:Eval Analysis"

From Education & Outreach
Jump to: navigation, search
(Comments on use cases: target audience comparison (content added, formatting improved))
m (Accessibility professionals)
 
Line 32: Line 32:
 
*Action: add reference to developer into DO, but see discussion point at end
 
*Action: add reference to developer into DO, but see discussion point at end
  
===Accessibility professionals===
+
===Accessibility (professionals) specialists===
*Question: Should accessibility professionals be the primary audience for EM?  
+
*Question: Should accessibility professionals/specialists be the primary audience for EM?  
 
<p>The Draft Overview (DO) starts with a scenario of an accessibility specialist, then QA, benchmarking and research.  These all have a strong need for a method by which to run a conformance evaluation.</p>
 
<p>The Draft Overview (DO) starts with a scenario of an accessibility specialist, then QA, benchmarking and research.  These all have a strong need for a method by which to run a conformance evaluation.</p>
 
In the TA these are the second, third and fourth of the primary audiences.
 
In the TA these are the second, third and fourth of the primary audiences.
 
*Action: none, the DO strongly recognises the roles of accessibility professionals and puts them first.
 
*Action: none, the DO strongly recognises the roles of accessibility professionals and puts them first.
 +
 
===Suppliers, procurers and owners===
 
===Suppliers, procurers and owners===
 
In the EM, suppliers, procurers and owners are listed in the first target audience.  
 
In the EM, suppliers, procurers and owners are listed in the first target audience.  

Latest revision as of 15:00, 23 November 2012

Comments on use cases

  • This is where you can comment on the use cases in the table. Please include the use-case number and first couple of words to help identification and add your name {Suzette}
    • Are the use cases useful?
    • Are they in WCAG_EM scope?
    • Are there additional contexts to consider?
    • Are critical use cases addressed in WCAG_EM?
  • Comment here {Your Name}


Target audience comparison

Understanding the target audience – comparison of:

  • The EM target audience (TA) - The Evaluation Methodology (EM) target audience has 4 primary and 4 secondary audiences
  • The EO draft Overview (DO) - The EO draft overview (DO) has four primary and three secondary audiences
  • Eval Analysis wiki scenarios (WS) - The wiki analysis has 6 scenarios who need awareness, 1 needs an overview, 9 a thorough knowledge and 5 need iterative (process) testing. (21 in total)

Missing scenarios

Comparing with the EM target audience:

  1. The draft overview (DO) is missing a clear reference to developers: “website developers, suppliers, procurers and owners” and “website developers who want an evaluation during the development process”
  2. In the wiki scenarios (WS) we omitted tool developers: “Developers of web accessibility evaluation and repair tools and authoring tools”

Developers roles and responsibilities

  • Question: what is the role of the developer and what are the needs of developers in relation to EM?

The term ‘developer’ is used generically to cover all aspects of web development but in practice covers many different roles and responsibilities. Their activities could include design, development, backend coding, content management, editorial control, and quality assurance ( and more). These take place in different sized organisations and agencies so that in the larger and more professional settings these roles may be taken by a team of many people with clearly defined responsibilities.

  • Developers are first in the list of the EM Target Audience, but omitted from the Draft Overview (DO)
  • In WS, there are 2 scenarios of developers needing detailed knowledge of EM: a web development agency – talking about providing an accessibility audit, and a developer certifying their own business. Otherwise, mostly the website the developer scenarios are defined in relation to iterative development.
  • Action: add reference to developer into DO, but see discussion point at end

Accessibility (professionals) specialists

  • Question: Should accessibility professionals/specialists be the primary audience for EM?

The Draft Overview (DO) starts with a scenario of an accessibility specialist, then QA, benchmarking and research. These all have a strong need for a method by which to run a conformance evaluation.

In the TA these are the second, third and fourth of the primary audiences.

  • Action: none, the DO strongly recognises the roles of accessibility professionals and puts them first.

Suppliers, procurers and owners

In the EM, suppliers, procurers and owners are listed in the first target audience.

  • In the DO this is partially covered by the last item:policy makers, project managers and others who need to point to a systmatic approach.
  • In WS we list these as people who only need an overview and a place to point others to
  • Question: Are these primary or secondary audience?

For discussion

  • Neither the DO or WS strongly support the first target audience defined in EM TA.

Is the EM TA addressing the right audience - should it put accessibility evaluators first?

  • Secondly - (and just for discussion!) A developer knows where the bodies are buried! I would like to suggest that a developer should not evaluate his/her own work. This should be done independently by someone who is adopting the role of accessibility evaluator. This could be a specialist or another developer from the same agency (or inhouse group) who has a good understanding of accessibility and is mean enough to go and look for the bodies (eg the difficult bits involving multimedia)