Accessibility Minutes 2012 03 26

From MemberWiki

Jump to: navigation, search


  • Jon Gunderson (University of Illinois - Co-Chair)
  • Nicholas Hoyt (University of Illinois)
  • Rich Schwerdtfeger (IBM - Co-Chair)
  • Prasanna Bale (University of Illinois)
  • Marc Johlic (IBM)
  • Ann Abbott (IBM)
  • Philip Ackermann (Fraunhofer Institute for Applied Information Technology) - Scribe


Jon: Any more feedback to the Accessibility Inspector?

Jon: Send any comments to me or to the list. Including the URLs of tested webpages in case of problems.

Ann: "Script having a problem / script hangs" kind of error

Jon: Currently re-evaluates the webpage every time it reloads

Ann: Try to reproduce the error and let you know.

Jon: Next agenda item: relationship between rules, rulesets and results

Jon: four different types of results: pass / fail / manual check / not applicable

Nick: the conceptual model that is necessary for modeling rules and rulesets is going to be complex if you want cover everything

Nick: send email to the list

Nick: two types of rules (required / recommended) --> different types of results

Nick:I would say that there are five types of results

Nick: one top level object is "rule-result"

Nick: results are tied to the different types of rules

Ann: what if one technique of a success criteria fails?

Ann: multiple sufficient techniques --> only one of them passes --> passing that rule for WCAG

Nick: conceptual model for web accessibility evaluation

Nick: see email for detailed description

Nick: understanding evaluation results in different context, one of the for example WCAG

Nick: list of rules --> mapping rules to WCAG into guidelines, criteria, techniques

Nick: what is a "rule"?

Nick: I would say an "interpretation of technique to meet a success criteria"


Nick: how many of the success criteria have this case, where one technique is sufficient?

Nick: Do we have a rule that cover 2.4.5?

Nick: Landmark rule

Jon: manual checks, for example alternative text for images

Jon: maybe over a hundred warnings

Nick: what Mark was saying: recommended violation / recommended manual check

Nick: if the results are broken down, recommended separated from required ones

Nick: users can prioritize

Jon: do we need to have some kind of logic for success criteria, e.g. "two techniques required"

Nick: how do we map those?

Nick: need to think about this

Jon: at the moment rules can be associated with techniques, but no way to describe the logic mentioned above

Philip: similar ontology (in RDF) started at Fraunhofer, but it is not finished yet

Jon: will discuss the models with PB and NH and prepare a proposal for next week

Personal tools