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