Evaluation
Suite:
Evaluation Template
Evaluation Tools
Review Teams
Implementation Suite +
Training Suite +
Review Teams for Evaluating Web Site Accessibility
Introduction
This document describes the optimum composition, training, and operation of
teams of reviewers evaluating accessibility of Web sites, based on experience
from individuals and organizations who have been evaluating accessibility of
Web sites for a number of years. The combination of perspectives afforded by
a team rather than individual approach to Web site evaluation can improve the
quality of evaluation. It provides links to potential training resources
related to types of expertise needed in Web site evaluation, and suggests
practices for effective coordination and communication during the review
process.
The description of Web accessibility review teams in this document is
informative, and not associated with any certification of review teams.
Operation of Web accessibility review teams according to the description in
this document does not guarantee evaluation results consistent with any
given law or regulation pertaining to Web accessibility.
This document does not address repair of inaccessible Web sites. The
recommended process for evaluation of Web site accessibility, and selection
of software for evaluation, is addressed in a separate document, Evaluating Web Sites for
Accessibility.
Composition of Review Teams
A review team, rather than individuals, is the optimum approach for
evaluating accessibility of Web sites because of the advantages that the
different perspectives on a review team can bring. It is possible for
individuals to evaluate Web site accessibility effectively, particularly if
they have good training and experience in a variety of areas, including
expertise with the increasing number of semi-automated evaluation tools for
Web accessibility. However, it is less likely that one individual will have
all the training and experience that a team approach can bring.
Affiliations among members of review teams may vary. For instance, a team
might be a group of colleagues working in the same physical office space, or
they might be a team of volunteers communicating consistently by email but
located in different countries and working for different organizations.
Likewise the nature of review teams as organizations may vary. For instance,
the review team might operate as a for-profit business enterprise; or as an
assigned monitoring and oversight group within a corporation or government
ministry; or strictly on a voluntary basis.
Expertise of Review Teams
Review teams should have expertise in the following areas. Links to potential
training resources are provided, although in areas such as use of assistive
technologies and adaptive strategies, the most effective review approach can
be inclusion of users with different disabilities.
- Web mark-up languages and validation tools
- W3C Technical Reports
- [point to which online training resources, or describe
generically?]
- Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 (WCAG 1.0) and Techniques for
WCAG 1.0
- [link to these docs, to curriculum, and to training resource
suite?]
- Conformance evaluation process from Evaluating Web Sites for
Accessibility
- [link to conf eval section; anything to link to on eval curriculum?
slide sets from hands-on workshops?]
- Use of a variety of evaluation tools for Web site accessibility
- [any training resources available for evaluation tools?]
- Use of computer-based assistive technologies and adaptive strategies
- [link to How People with Disabilities Use the Web sections]
- [write the piece on cautions about sighted people evaluating pages
with screen readers, etc.]
- Web design and development.
- [describe generic online resources?]
Operation of Review Teams
Communicate review process and expectations in advance
Depending upon the type of review, the review process may start with advance
communication about how the review will be conducted, whether the results
will be public or private, how the results will be presented, how much
follow-up guidance will be given, etc. In instances where review teams are
fulfilling a monitoring, oversight, or advocacy function, this advance
notice may not be necessary.
Coordinate review process and communication of results
Most review teams will maintain a private e-mail discussion list for internal
exchange of preliminary results during the process of reviewing a site, and
for coordinating on one summary of the results from the review team.
Reference specific checkpoints when explaining results
Reports from review teams are most effective when they cite and link to
specific WCAG 1.0 checkpoints which are not conformed to.
Compare evaluation results with other review teams
Review teams can benefit from periodically comparing summaries of Web site
reviews with other teams as a quality check.
Provide feedback on guidelines and implementation support resources
Feedback on implementation support resources contributes to improving the
quality of review tools and processes for all. Where possible, provide
feedback on accessibility guidelines and implementation support resources,
including the following:
- Evaluating Web Sites for Accessibility
- Review Teams for Evaluating Web Site Accessibility (this document)
- Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 (Working Draft)
- Accuracy of evaluation tools (provide feedback directly to tool
developers as well as to WAI)
Nominate Web sites for WAI Gallery
Review teams with the composition and training described in this document,
that evaluate Web sites using the conformance assessment method described in
Evaluating Web Sites for Accessibility, may nominate Web sites for the WAI
Gallery. Such nominations will be either reviewed by WAI staff or
cross-reviewed by another review team that meets the criteria decribed here.
As W3C/WAI establishes a gallery framework, information on how to nominate
Web sites for the WAI Gallery will be posted here.
Last revised: $Date: 2005/01/11 11:02:56 $
Editors: Judy Brewer, with assistance from participants of the
EOWG