W3C logo Web  Accessibility Initiative
	    (WAI) logo

Web Accessibility Initiative Evaluation and Repair Interest Group Charter


  1. Mission statement
  2. Scope
  3. Duration
  4. Deliverables
  5. Dependencies of other groups on this group's deliverables
  6. Dependencies of this group on other groups' deliverables
  7. Intended degree of confidentiality
  8. Relation to other groups
  9. Milestones for work items & deliverables
  10. Meeting mechanisms & schedules
  11. Communication mechanisms
  12. Voting mechanisms
  13. Level of involvement of Team
  14. W3C staff contact
  15. Estimate of time commitment a group member would have to make in order to participate.
  16. Participants.

1. Mission statement

The Evaluation and Repair Interest Group (ER IG) will work with the ER Working Group (ER WG) on tools for

  1. evaluating the accessibility of web sites
  2. repairing sites when necessary to improve accessibility.
  3. filtering site content to improve accessibility

ER IG will collect and analyze input from all people who use or benefit from these tools, including users with disabilities, web authors and administrators, content owners, and tool vendors.

2. Scope

2.1. Scope of work items

2.1.1. Type of Tool Users

  1. Users with disabilities, including novice and expert users of the web.
  2. Web site authors and administrators.
  3. Internet Service Providers (ISP's).
  4. Web content owners, i.e.  the people or organizations whose information is being presented on the web.
  5. Vendors of tools, including stand-alone tools, and assistive technology modules that might be used in authoring or browsing software.

2.1.2. Information sought:

For all the types of users listed above, and for initial and future versions of the tools:

  1. What features are needed for an evaluation tool?  This includes the question of  "rating", e.g. what if any weighting factors should be given to problems the evaluation tools detect?
  2. What features are needed for a repair tool?
  3. What features are needed for "filtering tools" used by end users to help make sites accessible to them.
  4. How should features be packaged?
  5. How should tools be made most usable?
  6. Once tools are completed (e.g. in beta) what improvement may be made?

2.1.2. Sources of input:

  1. Direct advice from members of the group.
  2. The user populations listed above.

2.1.3. Methodology:

  1. Expert advice (e.g. from  WG IG group members.)
  2. Experiment (e.g. asking users to judge two versions of a page.)
  3. Collection and analysis feedback from beta testing by novice and expert users..
  4. Informal surveys of users, both novice and expert.

2.2. Criteria for success

Success of the evaluation and repair tools will be gauged by informal surveys of users and testimonial opinions from organizations regarding:

  1. Increased accessibility provided by the tools.
  2. Ease of use of the tools.

Success will result from the joint efforts of ER WG and ER IG, and indeed all of the Web Accessibility Initiative. The individual contribution of the ER IG will be measured by examining survey results and testimonials regarding features to which the ER IG particularly contributed.

3. Duration of work items

In view of the constant stream of new technology whose accessibility must be evaluated, the expected duration of the ER-IG is two years, at which time the group should be re-chartered for the duration of WAI work.

4. Deliverables

  1. Recommendations for the questions listed under Scope /Information Sought (Section 2.1.2 above) shall be posted.
  2. A list of issues shall be maintained which shall include whether the issue was resolved and the resolution if any.
  3. A high level description of the processes used to collect input and make recommendations.

5. Dependencies of other groups on this group

5.1. Groups which will use deliverables

  1. The Evaluation and Repair Working Group (WAI-ER-WG) will use our deliverables as input.  The results will need to be delivered in a timely way for their development schedule.
  2. Any results  we obtain with implications for authoring tools  or user agents will be offered to the respective groups (WAI-AU and WAI-UA).
  3. An overview of our process will be offered to the Education and Outreach Group (WAI-EO) to help that group's outreach efforts.

5.2. Liaison Methods

  1. Documents published on the groups web sites.
  2. Meetings between chairs (WAI-CG) as needed.
  3. Participation of ER IG members in the ER WG.

6. Dependencies of this group on other groups

6.1. Groups whose work will be used:

  1. WAI Page Author Guidelines Working Group (WAI-GL). We will use the author guidelines as a basis for discussion.
  2. WAI Evaluation and Repair Working Group (WAI-ER-WG): We will look to this group for tools and plans for tools which may raise issues.
  3. WAI User Agent Working Group (WAI-UA) and Authoring Tools Working Group (WAI-AU).  We will look to these groups for problem solutions that might be brought into stand-alone tools.
  4. WAI Education and Outreach Working Group (WAI-EO) for feedback they may receive in the course of their outreach efforts.

6.2. Required time of delivery.

The Page Author Guidelines are already complete enough for initial work of this group to begin.   Input regarding plans and completed tools of the ER-WG will of course depend on when those plans and tools are delivered, but no requirements are set here.

7. Intended degree of Confidentiality

Group home page, proceedings, deliverables, and charter will all be public.

8. Relation to other groups

8.1. Relation to W3C Groups

This group is related to other W3C groups via the dependencies on deliverables described in sections 5 and 6 above.

In addition,

8.2. Relation to External Groups

In general, we will seek input from groups of the users identified above, including

  1. Groups of users with disabilities, including groups whose missions range from socialization and support to advocacy.
  2. Organizations of web site developers and administrators
  3. Organizations of tool vendors
  4. Research institutions concerned with disability, including universities, government, and other non-profit groups.
  5. Organizations of usability specialists.

9. Milestones for work items & deliverables

Recommendations will be packaged as the following series of deliverables.  However, informal communications will also be delivered to ER WG on other issues as they arise, especially if their quick resolution is needed by ER WG

  1. Initial recommendations for major issues and concerns: 6 weeks after start of mailing list activity.
  2. More in-depth recommendations: 9 weeks after start.
  3. Evaluations of beta tools:  For each tool,  initial review 2 weeks after tool availability.  Final review 4 weeks after tool availability.
  4. Additional Milestones and Commitment Dates: 6 weeks after start.

The times at which the other deliverables will be produced will depend on the issues that arise and the number of people available to address them.

10. Meeting mechanisms & schedules

  1. primary meeting mechanism: w3c-wai-er-ig list
  2. bi-weekly to monthly meeting: by phone
  3. quarterly (roughly) meeting: face-to-face

11. Communication mechanisms

11.1 Communication within the group

  1. w3c-wai-er-ig list
  2. /WAI/ER/IG group home page
  3. monthly to bi-weekly phone meetings
  4. quarterly face-to-face meetings

11.2. Communication with W3C

  1. Coordination through WAI Coordination Group to other WAI working groups and interest groups
  2. Direct postings to the WAI Interest Group (WAI-IG).
  3. Report at WAI Interest Group face-to-face meeting (every 4 month on average).

11.3. Communication with the public

12. Voting mechanisms and Escalation

There will be one vote per member (even if there are multiple members from a particular organization).   Votes shall be submitted via email.   (This differs from the W3C voting process for formal W3C process because these are not formal W3C recommendations)

Escalation of issues within ER IG or between ER WG and IG goes to the WAI Coordination Group.

13. Level of involvement of Team

10% Daniel Dardailler

14. W3C staff contact

Daniel Dardailler (danield@w3.org)

15. Estimated time and effort commitments a group member would have to make in order to participate

  1. minimum 3 hours per week. Of course, greater commitment is welcome.
  2. remain current on w3c-wai-er-ig list and respond in timely manner to postings
  3. participate in bi-weekly to monthly phone meetings or send regrets to chair.

16. Participants

It is crucial to have representation from all people who will be using the tools and the people who will benefit from their use.

We therefore seek participants who can give expert opinion of their own, plus participants who can collect information from people  who would not normally be represented (e.g. non-technical web content owners, people with little or no experience surfing the web).

This requires participation from people who are themselves

  1. Users with disabilities
  2. Web site content owners
  3. Web site authors, administrators
  4. Tool vendors
  5. Experts on disabilities
  6. Experts on usability
  7. As well as people who will reach out to obtain input from novice users, non-technical web site content owners, and any other people who might not normally participate directly.

The chair of this group is Len Kasday.

Leonard Kasday
Daniel Dardailler

Main version: June 30, 1998
Minor updates: August 23, 1999

Copyright  ©  1998 W3C (MIT, INRIA, Keio ), All Rights Reserved. W3C liability, trademark, document use and software licensing rules apply. Your interactions with this site are in accordance with our public and Member privacy statements.