IMPLEMENTING WEB ACCESSIBILITY THE MIPAW APPROACH ICCHP 2012 @Qelios Authors Jean-Pierre VILLAIN (Qelios) - @villainjp Olivier NOURRY (Qelios) - @OlivierNourry Dominique BURGER (UPMC INSERM, BrailleNet) Denis BOULAY (BrailleNet)
Mipaw Icchp D. Burger
Jun 21, 2015
This presentation was made at the ICCHP conference, Linz 2012. It presents the elaboration of a progressive implementation model for WCAG, centered on the notions of access to information and essential needs of users. MIPAW’s main goal is to serve as a framework for the elaboration of progressive enhancement methodologies, of measurement systems of the real level of accessibility, and the setting up of efficient quality assurance management systems. Based on state of the art, real-world experience, and expertise in accessibility, as well as quality assurance areas, the project has the ambition of providing methodological tools better suited to the constraints of web industrialization, while preserving the deployment of real user-centric accessibility. MIPAW is a project lead as part of the activities of the AccessiWeb GTA (Workgroup on Accessibility), and has received active support from 16 of the most prominent French companies in the area of expertise in digital accessibility.
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
IMPLEMENTING WEB ACCESSIBILITY
THE MIPAW APPROACH
IMPLEMENTING WEB ACCESSIBILITY
THE MIPAW APPROACH
ICCHP 2012
@Qelios
AuthorsJean-Pierre VILLAIN (Qelios) - @villainjpOlivier NOURRY (Qelios) - @OlivierNourryDominique BURGER (UPMC INSERM, BrailleNet)Denis BOULAY (BrailleNet)
2012
BrailleNet & AccessiWeb expert network
AccessiWeb = ressources and methods• To facilitate the understanding and implementation of the WCAG 2.0• To verify conformance to WCAG 2.0• To support the AccessiWeb certification scheme
AccessiWeb = Professional Expert Network (450 members, 260 organisations)
BrailleNet• French non for profit organization• Promotes e-Accessibility
• Digital Library for the print disabled• European e-Accessibility Forum• AccessiWeb
2011
MIPAW Project Partners
2012
Presentation Outlines
• Two approaches to Web Accessibility
• MIPAW objective and method
• First findings
• MIPAW and WCAG 2.0 Conformance
• Conclusion
2012
Two approaches
Excellence-based approach Gradual approach
Conformance Requirements
Means
= Goal Maximal ControlsCertification
Main Risks
Over-quality, strongly Impacts the project
Accessibility dropped out
Main Risks
Users under-served, accessibility at low priority
Conformance Requirements
Means
= Indicator Relative Quality Management
Advantages
Mastered, Adaptable
Advantages
Service to users, Guarantees
2012
The Ambition of MIPAW
To build a methodology combining advantages of the excellence-based and the gradual approaches and addressing concrete user expectations
2012
User’s expectations …
To be able to access and to use information, isn’t it ?
Can WCAG 2.0 be viewed from this point ?
2012
Preliminary Findings
2012
First Findings
Criteria (AccessiWeb Check list) A AA AAA Total
Critical for access to information 35 3 7 4545
Non-critical, with strong impact 33 10 168888
Non-critical, with weak or null impact 14 7 8
•Access to information is a structuring notion•A first set of criteria emerged, considered as critical for accessing information. They cover all three levels.•All three WCAG levels are represented in each set of criteria
2012
MIPAW Classification
Group 1Group 1Group 1Group 1 Group 2Group 2Group 2Group 2
25 criteriaRelevance25 criteriaRelevance
20 criteriaPresence/ absence
20 criteriaPresence/ absence 29 criteria
Weak impact
29 criteriaWeak
impact
59 criteriaStrong impact
59 criteriaStrong impact
Criteria (AccessiWeb Check list) A AA AAA Total
Critical for access to information 35 3 7 4545
Non-critical, with strong impact 33 10 168888
Non-critical, with weak or null impact 14 7 8
Access to information
Access to information
2012
A Model for a Progressive Implementation of Web Accessibility (MIPAW)
Criteria can be distributed on a scale representing the various degrees of optimisation
Access to informationAccess to information
Critical UX Improvement
• Excellence-based approach• No exception allowed
• Gradual approach• Flexible
2012
MIPAW and WCAG Conformance
Compatibility with WCAG levels and conformance100% WCAG conformance on each level is reached when criteria are met in the 4 groups, for the considered WCAG level.
Access to informationAccess to informationEssential Device
UX Improvement
WCAG Conformance
2012
Conclusion
Some of our expectations regarding this Model for Implementation Progressively Accessibility into Web services :
•To be representative of a possible gradual implementation strategy• less demanding than purely excellence-based approaches• yet with no compromises with regards to essential users needs.
•Likely to provide an adequate support for project management methodologies with gradual implementation phases, while remaining focused on users needs.
•Theoretical playground for couplings between WCAG, excellence-based approaches, and gradual strategies.
•Can support measurement systems that include defect-tolerance
•Publication of first results: end of 2012
•Hoped to be a contribution to methodological work conducted by W3C/WAI
Thank you !Questions ?
We are interested in broader cooperation …
Jean-Pierre VILLAIN (Qelios) - @villainjpOlivier NOURRY (Qelios) - @OlivierNourryDominique BURGER (UPMC INSERM, BrailleNet) [email protected] BOULAY (BrailleNet) [email protected]
ICCHP 2012
@Qelios
Related Documents
