![[toggle]](javascript:icntoggle('mod-mnu_application_menul1','module.png');){kind=small}
Tikiwiki AssistantThank you for installing Tikiwiki!
|
Commoner Wiki: Home pageIntroductionWhat is the Commoner Wiki about?This Commoner Wiki is a temporary platform for an open discussion of Different approaches to accessibility evaluation across participants in different European Member States. This discussion can become the basis for defining a European project about accessibility evaluation procedures. The name 'Commoner' is simply used as a placeholder for a future project name still to be determined.Draft aimsThe Commoner wiki simply provides a place for an informal discussion to identify
Who should participate?The target group for this discussion consists of those organisations and individuals that conduct accessibility evaluations / tests of individual web sites, often resulting in a quality label of some sort. I have already contacted a few of you and I would be glad if you join the discussion.If you know of other organisations that you think should be interested, please extend this invitation to them and point them to this Wiki. There is a page on Potential partners where you can enter you organisation in case you are interested. Of course, entering does not commit you to anything. It just gives you an opportunity to shape this project according to your real needs (which may not be the same as ours). Feel free to create an additional page about your respective organisation and interest. Who initiated Commoner Wiki?Commoner was initiated and set up by The BIK project, which is funded by the German Bundesministerium für Arbeit und Soziales (German Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs). Within The BIK project, a test procedure, the BITV Test, has been developed that is extensively used to test the compliance of German federal websites (and other, often public, sites that wish to conform) to the BITV, the German regulation implementing the WCAG 1.0.Here is an English summary of the BITV testing scheme. What will the discussion lead to?If this discussion on the Commoner Wiki proves fruitful, we could set up a European project dedicated to information exchange about evaluation and testing methods, with the aim to make our tests and scores more relevant.The structure and possible funding of such a project remain to be determined once the concept has taken shape. The Commoner approach (proposed by The BIK project)The starting point: Everyone needs to revise their testing methodologiesVarious different accessibility evaluation procedures are in use across Europe. Some are publicly documented in great detail, others more in outline, still others probably only internally or not at all. Their common point of reference is usually WCAG 1.0. Since the adoption of WCAG 2.0 in late 2008, we assume that most organisations will now be modifying their evaluation procedure.Draft list of topics to be discussed in CommonerExchange in Commoner would give us better idea of the commonalities and differences across participants and organisations. Here is a draft list of topics for discussion (please extend the list):
The Commoner approach and UWEMIf you are aware of UWEM, you will ask: Why another project about harmonising accessibility evaluation methodologies? Hasn't UWEM done that already?The approach to harmonisation chosen in Commoner is different and complementary. The approach taken in UWEM was to create a single, unified, and well-formed procedure and a quantitative ranking scheme (aggregating a binary PASS/FAIL value for all testable instances on all pages selected to be within the scope of testing). There is an emphasis on browser and tool independence. In practice, UWEM has so far mainly be used in tools and methods for automated accessibility testing, for example, in benchmarking studies or observatories. Using UWEM in projects like EIAO or studies like MeAC is important to give an overall indication of the improvement of accessibility across Europe. But UWEM does not (and does not intend to) help negotiate the many practical questions regarding the evaluation of actual web design solutions that testers face every day.In Commoner, the approach to harmonisation is gradual and negotiated, and not prescriptive. We do not suggest that Commoner should try to establish a single procedure that should become mandatory for all. We believe that the development of evaluation methodologies and procedures across Europe has created various commitments that make it unlikely that any unified approach would stand a real chance to replace what is now being actively used on a day-to-day basis. Are the WCAG not sufficient in terms of harmonisation?Since all (or most?) of the existing approaches take the WCAG as common point of reference, one could argue that even a gradual harmonisation of approaches to evaluation and testing is not really necessary. After all, if the WCAG checkpoints are correctly interpreted and applied to actual web sites, should not the results be broadly equivalent?Maybe they should, but they are probably not. Exploring these differences of methodological approach, of individual judgement of criteria as applied to actual pages, and of the ranking or scoring scheme that in the end produces some final value indicating the accessibility of a site (a percentage, a grade, a binary label that simply claims conformance, and so on) is one of the starting points of Commoner. Starting a mutual learning experienceEngaging in a sustained discussion of these points between European partners provides a mutual learning experience. Individual organisations can use these discussions as an informal validation of their own procedure or methodology. On different levels, participants can try to find Agreement on best practices. They can then adopt changes if and when they consider it suitable. There is no pressure to comply, there is simply the shared effort to make one's evaluation procedure as meaningful and efficient as possible for the generation of a transparent and valid accessibility assessment (whatever label is used).In The BIK project, we have seen The need for an efficient and well-documented accessibility evaluation methodology. Other organisations are likely to come up with a different approach. Mutual exchange can help all of us to validate our respective approaches and learn from those of others. Access to this WikiPlease contact Detlev Fischer (fischer@dias.de) to receive login details if you want to participate. You can contribute to this and other pages as well as create new pages after logging in. Please review the wiki syntax for editing details.
For more information: |
Login |