E-mail List Archives
Thread: Evaluating accessibility level for managers
Number of posts in this thread: 15 (In chronological order)
From: Stephane Deschamps
Date: Wed, Jun 21 2006 7:20PM
Subject: Evaluating accessibility level for managers
No previous message | Next message →
Hi all,
We're having a problem with how accessibility level is conveyed to managers.
We've tested a site lately, and it conforms to 39% to A and 48% to A+AA.
So, seen from a manager's point of view, it seems that they're better at
AA than at A.
Which could be a problem, because they may eventually be more careful
about some AA criteria which are perhaps more spectacular than basic but
necessary A criteria.
We're afraid that it's not very representative of the overall quality of
the site.
We've tried doing some perequation, like A+AA is computed in such a way
that A criteria weigh twice as much as AA criteria for instance, but it's
not very effective, and I'm not personally very comfortable with 'tweaked'
results. Someone will end up redoing the calculations and could call us
frauds ;)
What do you all think? How do you people convey the idea that A is more
important than AA, and samely that AA is more important than AAA?
--
Stephane Deschamps
Paris Web 2006 :
http://www.parisweb2006.org/
(qualit
From: Sailesh Panchang
Date: Wed, Jun 21 2006 8:30PM
Subject: RE: Evaluating accessibility level for managers
← Previous message | Next message →
The Web accessibility evaluation tools from Deque Systems
(www.deque.com/products)
allow one to generate summary and detailed reports for a single Web page or
for the whole or part of the website spidered. The summary reports would
definitely help managers and supervisors focus on sections of the site and
types of violations that need to be attended to quickly. Besides Deque's
reports provide an inventory of the information resources or assets across
the site plus much more and facilitate IT governance.
Not for profit organizations, educational institutions etc. are encouraged
to participate in Deque's One Accessible World Program that lets them use
Deque Ramp Personal Edition at no cost.
See http://www.deque.com/products/ramp/rampPE.php
For more information and onetime registration
Thanks,
Sailesh Panchang
Senior Accessibility Engineer
Deque Systems Inc. (www.deque.com)
11180 Sunrise Valley Drive, Suite #400,
Reston VA 20191
Phone: 703-225-0380 (ext 105)
E-mail: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
From: Jon Gunderson
Date: Wed, Jun 21 2006 8:50PM
Subject: RE: Evaluating accessibility level for managers
← Previous message | Next message →
Rainer,
1. Titling is part of WCAG 1.0 through the following checkpoints:
Checkpoint 3.5 Use header elements to convey document
structure and use them according to specification. [Priority 2]
Checkpoint 13.4 Use navigation mechanisms in a consistent
manner. [Priority 2]
In WCAG 2.0 working draft there is even more on titling:
Success Criteria 2.4.3 Web units have titles
Success Criteria 2.4.5 Titles, headings, and labels are
descriptive.
2. One of the main reasons FAE [1] was created to re-emphasize
navigation issues through structural markup. Current
automated tools ignore these issues by assigning them to
manual checks.
FAE is designed for functional accessibility and give
developers clear techniques for implementing section 508 and
WCAG requirments.
Jon
[1] http://fae.cita.uiuc.edu
---- Original message ----
>Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 16:25:17 +0200
>From: "Rainer Wagener" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>Subject: RE: [WebAIM] Evaluating accessibility level for
managers
>To: "WebAIM Discussion List" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>
>Hi Jon,
>
>let me first state: I'm not very much in favor of automatic
testing
>tools.
>Especially when a site I'm responsible for does not pass 100% ;-)
>
>I was denied some 16% of having implemented 'Navigation &
>Orientation' correctly.
>Reason: 'all h1 elements should have text content that
matches all or
>part of the corresponding title content'.
>
>I never heard about such a rule. I wonder how it could be derived
>from WCAG.
>
>
>Rainer
>
>--
>
>www.rohschnitt.de
>
>
>
>
Jon Gunderson, Ph.D.
Director of IT Accessibility Services
Campus Information Technologies and Educational Services (CITES)
and
Coordinator of Assistive Communication and Information Technology
Disability Resources and Education Services (DRES)
Voice: (217) 244-5870
Fax: (217) 333-0248
Cell: (217) 714-6313
E-mail: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
WWW: http://cita.rehab.uiuc.edu/
WWW: https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/jongund/www/
From: redazione nonsolocms
Date: Wed, Jun 21 2006 10:30PM
Subject: Re: Evaluating accessibility level for managers
← Previous message | Next message →
Jon Gunderson ha scritto:
> We are developing a tool at the University of Illinois that
> does provide a summary for managers. It estimated the number
> og rules passed, check it out.
>
> http://fae.cita.uiuc.edu/
>
> Would be interested in any comments people have about the tool.
>
> Jon
Hi Jon, I think your tool is really useful.
I tested it on my personal web log, just to see
how it works [1]. Here are a couple of notes I found:
http://fae.cita.uiuc.edu/index.php?section=report&;page=nav&id=w449401c834546&scope=page&pageid=10
this is a check upon a RSS feed: your tool should
be able to discriminate between pages and feeds
(or other XML content)
http://visualizer.cita.uiuc.edu/index.php?filter=Navigation&;view=OutlineForms&urlI cannot currently access this site from here, is
this my faul someway?
http://fae.cita.uiuc.edu/index.php?section=report&;page=nav&id=w449401c834546&scope=site
I think it could be useful to "explode" the various
issues, to know which pages did not pass the test
Thank you for your tool. I'll write a review on my
web log. Are there plans to translate it in other
languages? If so, I'd like to contribute in my spare
time :-)
Have a nice day,
dino.
From: Karl Groves
Date: Wed, Jun 21 2006 10:50PM
Subject: RE: Evaluating accessibility level for managers
← Previous message | Next message →
I was going to comment on that as well.
Implying a percentage of compliance is ignoring the fact that each different
item has a different impact and each "violation" can vary in its severity as
well.
Some violations are mere nuisances whereas others are a complete barrier to
access.
Karl L. Groves
User-Centered Design, Inc.
Office: 703-729-0998
Mobile: 443-889-8763
E-Mail: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Web: http://www.user-centereddesign.com
>
From: Jon Gunderson
Date: Wed, Jun 21 2006 11:00PM
Subject: RE: Evaluating accessibility level for managers
← Previous message | Next message →
We are developing a tool at the University of Illinois that
does provide a summary for managers. It estimated the number
og rules passed, check it out.
http://fae.cita.uiuc.edu/
Would be interested in any comments people have about the tool.
Jon
---- Original message ----
>Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 12:36:20 -0400
>From: "Karl Groves" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>Subject: RE: [WebAIM] Evaluating accessibility level for
managers
>To: "'WebAIM Discussion List'" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>
>I was going to comment on that as well.
>Implying a percentage of compliance is ignoring the fact that
each different
>item has a different impact and each "violation" can vary in
its severity as
>well.
>Some violations are mere nuisances whereas others are a
complete barrier to
>access.
>
>
>Karl L. Groves
>User-Centered Design, Inc.
>Office: 703-729-0998
>Mobile: 443-889-8763
>E-Mail: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>Web: http://www.user-centereddesign.com
>
>>
From: Jon Gunderson
Date: Wed, Jun 21 2006 11:40PM
Subject: Re: Evaluating accessibility level for managers
← Previous message | Next message →
Emma,
Thank you for your comments on FAE. We do plan to add test in
the future for contrast and for readibility.
Jon
---- Original message ----
>Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 18:23:08 +0100
>From: "Emma Duke-Williams" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Evaluating accessibility level for
managers
>To: "WebAIM Discussion List" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>
>On 6/17/06, Rainer Wagener < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>> Hi Jon,
>>
>> let me first state: I'm not very much in favor of automatic
testing
>> tools.
>> Especially when a site I'm responsible for does not pass
100% ;-)
>>
>My initial reaction was the same as Rainer's ... I was somewhat
>struggling to work out why I'd failed on somethings ... till I
>realised I'd put the wrong URL in & got the University's 404
page!
>
>There are only two things wrong, the search box label that
I'm still
>trying to sort out ..the defeatist in me says "you're the
only person
>who uses it - remove it & use Google's site search when
you're looking
>for a post" ; the completist in me says "Get it sorted, don't
worry
>about it looking weird - who's going to care" The other thing
that's
>missing is the language declaration - I'll have to check the word
>press template, as I'd have thought I ought to be able to add it.
>
>It's a danger though to rely on auto-testing I think - to
start with,
>I'm sure that my header logo doens't give enough contrast
with the
>background - and it's not, as far as I can tell, alterted me
to the
>fact that I've got audio feeds in there - I'd have liked it to at
>least ask if I've checked that a transcript is available, if
>appropriate.
>
>The other thing that I feel strongly should be included -
even though
>I know that I'd fail, would be checks to find the
readability. We've
>got a lot of students who are dyslexic (none are blind), so
ensuring
>that I use accessible language is actually of far more
importance to
>me than a label on a search box that few use.
>
>As a tool, though, it's nice & clear & quick! (Does it work
on off
>line pages so that you can test them before they even see the
light of
>day?)
>
>Emma
>
>--
>Blog: http://www.tech.port.ac.uk/staffweb/duke-wie/blog/
>
>
>
Jon Gunderson, Ph.D.
Director of IT Accessibility Services
Campus Information Technologies and Educational Services (CITES)
and
Coordinator of Assistive Communication and Information Technology
Disability Resources and Education Services (DRES)
Voice: (217) 244-5870
Fax: (217) 333-0248
Cell: (217) 714-6313
E-mail: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
WWW: http://cita.rehab.uiuc.edu/
WWW: https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/jongund/www/
From: Jukka K. Korpela
Date: Thu, Jun 22 2006 1:10AM
Subject: Re: Evaluating accessibility level for managers
← Previous message | Next message →
On Fri, 16 Jun 2006, Stephane Deschamps wrote:
> We're having a problem with how accessibility level is conveyed to managers.
Reality check: Most managers don't know what accessibility is. Discussing
"levels" with them is not constructive.
> We've tested a site lately, and it conforms to 39% to A and 48% to A+AA.
> So, seen from a manager's point of view, it seems that they're better at
> AA than at A.
>From a normal manager's point of view, that says nothing. Unfortunately,
not all managers admit their ignorance of what accessibility levels are.
> Which could be a problem, because they may eventually be more careful
> about some AA criteria which are perhaps more spectacular than basic but
> necessary A criteria.
Perhaps. So why would you tell them anything about A, AA, or AAA, or
percentages?
> We've tried doing some perequation, like A+AA is computed in such a way
> that A criteria weigh twice as much as AA criteria for instance,
That's pointless arithmetics.
> How do you people convey the idea that A is more
> important than AA, and samely that AA is more important than AAA?
That's inherent in the "levels". Either you know that, or you don't.
Either you agree with the idea, or you don't.
If your site conforms to 39% to A and 48% to A+AA, then I would say - even
with strong criticism on the usefulness of the criteria and their
classification - that the site has very poor accessibility. Why would you
want to misrepresent this? The real measure, however, is how common and
how serious the violations are. For example, is there a single page that
exhibits very many inaccessabilities, or do the poor percentages really
reflect the overall quality of pages of the site?
--
Jukka "Yucca" Korpela, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
From: Sam Mignano - Analyst
Date: Thu, Jun 22 2006 1:30AM
Subject: RE: Evaluating accessibility level for managers
← Previous message | Next message →
I just checked this out and downloaded a trial of Ramp Grade. I really
like the format and believe this will be useful in our web audits for
customers.
Thanks for the info
Sam Mignano
Beyond Metrix
www.beyondmetrix.com
From: Rainer Wagener
Date: Thu, Jun 22 2006 2:30AM
Subject: RE: Evaluating accessibility level for managers
← Previous message | Next message →
Hi Jon,
let me first state: I'm not very much in favor of automatic testing
tools.
Especially when a site I'm responsible for does not pass 100% ;-)
I was denied some 16% of having implemented 'Navigation &
Orientation' correctly.
Reason: 'all h1 elements should have text content that matches all or
part of the corresponding title content'.
I never heard about such a rule. I wonder how it could be derived
from WCAG.
Rainer
--
www.rohschnitt.de
From: Patrick H. Lauke
Date: Sun, Jun 25 2006 10:30AM
Subject: Re: Evaluating accessibility level for managers
← Previous message | Next message →
>> From: "Rainer Wagener"
>> I was denied some 16% of having implemented 'Navigation &
>> Orientation' correctly.
>> Reason: 'all h1 elements should have text content that
> matches all or
>> part of the corresponding title content'.
>>
>> I never heard about such a rule. I wonder how it could be derived
>>from WCAG.
>>
Jon Gunderson wrote:
> Rainer,
>
> 1. Titling is part of WCAG 1.0 through the following checkpoints:
>
> Checkpoint 3.5 Use header elements to convey document
> structure and use them according to specification. [Priority 2]
>
> Checkpoint 13.4 Use navigation mechanisms in a consistent
> manner. [Priority 2]
>
> In WCAG 2.0 working draft there is even more on titling:
>
> Success Criteria 2.4.3 Web units have titles
> Success Criteria 2.4.5 Titles, headings, and labels are
> descriptive.
>
> 2. One of the main reasons FAE [1] was created to re-emphasize
> navigation issues through structural markup. Current
> automated tools ignore these issues by assigning them to
> manual checks.
>
> FAE is designed for functional accessibility and give
> developers clear techniques for implementing section 508 and
> WCAG requirments.
But, as it stands, the automated check that is performed is based on the
*opinion* of those who coded the test and/or heuristics, no?
I don't mind, as long as this fact is clearly advertised. Otherwise,
this sort of thing can lead again to managers demanding 100% results in
a tool, and developers basically having to code to the tool's whims
rather than to any accessibility benefits/considerations.
P
--
Patrick H. Lauke
___________
re
From: Jon Gunderson
Date: Sun, Jun 25 2006 6:40PM
Subject: Re: Evaluating accessibility level for managers
← Previous message | Next message →
WCAG 1.0 has no specific rules for html for any of the
requirements. All automated tools make there own
interpretation of WCAG 1.0 and Section 508 in terms of what
they check. The Functional Accessibility Evaluators rules are
based on the needs of people with disabilities and improving
interoperability for the benefit of all users of the web.
Jon
---- Original message ----
>Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 17:28:22 +0100
>From: "Patrick H. Lauke" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Evaluating accessibility level for
managers
>To: WebAIM Discussion List < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>
> >> From: "Rainer Wagener"
>
> >> I was denied some 16% of having implemented 'Navigation &
> >> Orientation' correctly.
> >> Reason: 'all h1 elements should have text content that
> > matches all or
> >> part of the corresponding title content'.
> >>
> >> I never heard about such a rule. I wonder how it could be
derived
> >>from WCAG.
> >>
>
>Jon Gunderson wrote:
>> Rainer,
>>
>> 1. Titling is part of WCAG 1.0 through the following
checkpoints:
>>
>> Checkpoint 3.5 Use header elements to convey document
>> structure and use them according to specification. [Priority 2]
>>
>> Checkpoint 13.4 Use navigation mechanisms in a consistent
>> manner. [Priority 2]
>>
>> In WCAG 2.0 working draft there is even more on titling:
>>
>> Success Criteria 2.4.3 Web units have titles
>> Success Criteria 2.4.5 Titles, headings, and labels are
>> descriptive.
>>
>> 2. One of the main reasons FAE [1] was created to re-emphasize
>> navigation issues through structural markup. Current
>> automated tools ignore these issues by assigning them to
>> manual checks.
>>
>> FAE is designed for functional accessibility and give
>> developers clear techniques for implementing section 508 and
>> WCAG requirments.
>
>But, as it stands, the automated check that is performed is
based on the
>*opinion* of those who coded the test and/or heuristics, no?
>
>I don't mind, as long as this fact is clearly advertised.
Otherwise,
>this sort of thing can lead again to managers demanding 100%
results in
>a tool, and developers basically having to code to the tool's
whims
>rather than to any accessibility benefits/considerations.
>
>P
>--
>Patrick H. Lauke
>___________
>re
From: Patrick H. Lauke
Date: Sun, Jun 25 2006 6:50PM
Subject: Re: Evaluating accessibility level for managers
← Previous message | Next message →
Jon Gunderson wrote:
> The Functional Accessibility Evaluators rules are
> based on the needs of people with disabilities and improving
> interoperability for the benefit of all users of the web.
...but they're still opinion/interpretation/extrapolation,
are they not? suggested best practices, rather than unbreakable
sets of rules?
P
--
Patrick H. Lauke
___________
re
From: Jon Gunderson
Date: Thu, Jul 06 2006 8:20AM
Subject: Re: Evaluating accessibility level for managers
← Previous message | Next message →
Stephanie,
You may want to look at a tool being developed at the University of Illinios
called the "Functional Accessibility Evaluator". It has a summary report
designed for managers, I would be interested in your comments on how
effective you think it would be to use with managers or if you show it to
managers what they think of it.
http://fae.cita.uiuc.edu
Jon
On 6/16/06, Stephane Deschamps < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> We're having a problem with how accessibility level is conveyed to
> managers.
>
> We've tested a site lately, and it conforms to 39% to A and 48% to A+AA.
> So, seen from a manager's point of view, it seems that they're better at
> AA than at A.
>
> Which could be a problem, because they may eventually be more careful
> about some AA criteria which are perhaps more spectacular than basic but
> necessary A criteria.
>
> We're afraid that it's not very representative of the overall quality of
> the site.
>
> We've tried doing some perequation, like A+AA is computed in such a way
> that A criteria weigh twice as much as AA criteria for instance, but it's
> not very effective, and I'm not personally very comfortable with 'tweaked'
> results. Someone will end up redoing the calculations and could call us
> frauds ;)
>
> What do you all think? How do you people convey the idea that A is more
> important than AA, and samely that AA is more important than AAA?
>
> --
> Stephane Deschamps
> Paris Web 2006 :
> http://www.parisweb2006.org/
> (qualit
From: St
Date: Thu, Jul 06 2006 3:00PM
Subject: Re: Evaluating accessibility level for managers
← Previous message | No next message
<quote who='Jon Gunderson' when='06/07/2006 16:13'>
> Stephanie,
> You may want to look at a tool being developed at the University of
> Illinios
> called the "Functional Accessibility Evaluator". It has a summary report
> designed for managers, I would be interested in your comments on how
> effective you think it would be to use with managers or if you show it to
> managers what they think of it.
>
> http://fae.cita.uiuc.edu
>
> Jon
Jon,
Actually it's Stephane and it's male in this country but it's OK ;)
Eventually what we decided was that although very, very far from
perfect, the solution was to only provide an AA conformance level,
without even mentioning the effort needed, but as an indicator of a
project's evolution.
Thanks all for sharing your thoughts.
--
St