MIPAW Model for a Progressive Implementation of Web Accessibility Web4All – April 2012 @Qelios Authors Jean-Pierre VILLAIN (Qelios) - @villainjp Olivier NOURRY (Qelios) - @OlivierNourry Dominique BURGER (BrailleNet)
Mipaw: Model for a Progressive Implementation of Web Accessibility - Web4All
Jun 01, 2015
Our presentation of MIPAW at Web 4 All 2012.
MIPAW is a model for a possible strategy of gradual implementation of Web accessibility. It aims at providing a basis for project management methodologies relying on implementation phases, while remaining focused on essential users needs.
MIPAW is a model for a possible strategy of gradual implementation of Web accessibility. It aims at providing a basis for project management methodologies relying on implementation phases, while remaining focused on essential users needs.
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
MIPAWModel for a
Progressive Implementationof Web Accessibility
W e b 4 A l l – A p r i l 2 0 1 2
@Qelios
AuthorsJean-Pierre VILLAIN (Qelios) - @villainjpOlivier NOURRY (Qelios) - @OlivierNourryDominique BURGER (BrailleNet)
MIP
AW
2012
Currently: Methods rather than Methodologies
Excellence-based approach Gradual approach
Tends to adapt the project
to the accessibility requirements
Tends to adapt the accessibility requirements
to the project’s capacities
Conformance Requirements Means
=Goal Maximal ControlsCertification
Advantages
Service to users, Guarantees
Advantages
Mastered, Adaptable
Main Risks
Over-quality, Changes the project
Main Risks
Users under-served, Lower priority
Conformance Requirements
Means
=Indicator Relative Quality Management
MIP
AW
2012
Limits of Excellence-based Approaches
Certification is effective, but it is not sufficient
100% conformance on everything,
really better than 100% conformance on
what is useful?
We must not discard certification,We must make it smarter
WCAGAre the efforts worth the results?
MIP
AW
2012
Limits of current Gradual Approaches
The constraints of the project definehow requirements are handled
Measuring conformance: What does 75%
conformance mean?
We need gradual implementation phases consistent with users needs
WCAG levels arenot structuring
anymore
Users needs are deprioritized
MIP
AW
2012
The Basis of MIPAW
How to choose what to start with,while addressing users’ most urgent needs?
MIP
AW
2012
The very Primary Need…
Access to information?
Can WCAG be structured with this angle?
MIP
AW
2012
A Preliminary Survey
• 8 experts• Accessiweb checklist
Workgroup
• To study the notion of « Access to information » related to user impact
Goal
• Classification of each criterion on 2 axes:• Does it prevent access to information for some users? (yes/no)• If not, assess user impact (strong/weak)
Method
MIP
AW
2012
Findings of this Preliminary Survey
Criteria A AA AAA Total
Critical for access to information 35 3 7 45
Non-critical, with strong impact 33 10 1688
Non-critical, with weak or null impact 14 7 8
• Access to information is a structuring notion• All 3 WCAG levels are represented in each set• A first set of criteria considered as critical for access to information, can
be defined. Covers all 3 levels.
MIP
AW
2012
From Access to Information, to MIPAW
Another result appearedA secondary classification, based on these indicators: presence, relevance, and strength of user impact (significant or null with regards to access to information)
Group 1 Group 2
Relevance 25 criteria
Presence 20 criteria Access to
info: null impact
29 criteria
Access to info:
significant impact
59 criteria
Access to information
1.Presence 2.Relevance 3.Significant impact 4.Null impact
Groups descriptions:1. Securing Access to Information 2. Guaranteeing Access to Information3. Improving User Impact4. Improving User Experience
MIP
AW
2012
Inception of MIPAW
The Model for a Progressive Implementation is based on this distribution
Principle: to distribute the criteria on an arbitrary scale, structured by the notion of « access to information »
Access to information
Essential Device UX Improvement
MIP
AW
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.
In this model, the threshold « Access to information » is considered as the pivotal point to identify essential users needs.
1.Presence 2.Relevance 3.Significant impact 4.Null impact
Access to information
Essential Device UX Improvement
Level A
Level AA
Level AAA
Level A
Level AA
Level AAA
Level A
Level AA
Level AAA
Level A
Level AA
Level AAA
Esse
ntial
nee
ds WCAG Conformance
MIP
AW
2012
Outlooks for MIPAW
Some of our expectations regarding this Model for a Progressive Implementation of Web Accessibility:
• 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
MIP
AW
2012
Current status of MIPAW
• Community project led by Qelios and Braillenet• 16 partners have expressed their interest (next page)• 5 workgroups have been constituted:
Technical Definitions
Measurement
Methodologies
Certification Users
• First real-size tests: end of Q2-2012• Publication of first results: end of 2012
MIP
AW
2011
Partners of the MIPAW Project
Thanks for your attention!Questions?
AuthorsJean-Pierre VILLAIN (Qelios) - @villainjpOlivier NOURRY (Qelios) - @OlivierNourryDominique BURGER (BrailleNet)
W e b 4 A l l – A p r i l 2 0 1 2
@Qelios
Related Documents
