[IP] Questions for Documents Survey

[Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org>]

[IP] = A thread from the "Information Presentation Subcommittee" of the
EITAAC.

Questions for Documents Survey:

In the EITAAC IP Subcommittee discussion yesterday (Jan. 6, 1999) we agreed
on a number of tasks. One of those was to survey existing standards and
guidelines documents (= "documents") which might pertain to accessibility
of specific technologies covered by Sec. 508. (There's another IP
Subcommittee activity going on at the same time to do a top-down approach
starting with the higher level requirements.)

We divvied up the technology "families" taxonomy, with small groups taking
batches of what was on the list. (If I recall correctly, we divvied these
up into 5 groupings: software, Web, office machines, ITM's & ATM's, and
Telecom (CPE). For confirmation of these groupings & an assignment, if you
weren't at the subcommittee meeting, please contact John Godfrey who is
chairing the IP Subcommittee.)

While the IP Subcommittee will be most interested in info on "information
presentation" contained in these documents, we expect that the resulting
compilation will be useful for other EITAAC subcommittees, and encourage
others to ask similar questions if you are also doing any
survey/compilation work, and to point out useful resources for gathering
this info (we're aware of the Trace collection).

QUESTIONS:

To make sure that we ask the same questions when evaluating the
relevance/suitability of the documents, we agreed to address the following
list of questions where possible. The IP Subcommittee welcomes additional
comment on the questions themselves.

1. Does a standard or guideline exist for "X"? (X = a specific technology,
such as a copier, desktop computer monitor, pager, Web site editing tool,
etc.)
	- If so, name and version number of document: 
	- Location of document (URL, or association from which it may be
purchased, etc.):

2. What is the scope of the document?
	- Was the document intended to address accessibility of technology "X"?
	- Is the entire scope of the document relevant to Sec. 508, or only a
portion? (For instance, do parts of the document address technologies not
covered by Sec. 508)? If so, what portion is relevant?
	- What "levels" of the EITAAC standards outline does it correspond to?
(For instance, a document might include its own "higher level" of
accessibility principles, and yet we might be interested only in the
technology-specific content of the document).
	
3. Is the document comprehensive with regard to functional/performance
requirements (the "higher level" guidelines which EITAAC has been
discussing)? 
	- For instance, does it address accessibility requirements related to
physical disability, but not to visual, hearing, or cognitive/neurological
disabilities?
	- Were people with disabilities considered in "norming" the document? (For
instance, some ergonomic/usability standards are normed to able-bodied
military personnel, and individuals with disabilities requirements were
never directly tested nor considered.)

4. Is the document up-to-date with regard to technology?
	- What is the date of the most recent version?
	- What renewal process is the document under (ANSI? ISO? W3C? IETF? etc.)
and what is the next likely upcoming revision (if known)?

5. In what manner is the document referenceable? 
	- Must it be purchased or licensed to be referenced?
	- Is conformance to the document defined in the document? (For instance,
does the document include a statement of what is considered a "fully
conforming" or "minimally conforming" implementation of the standard or
guideline?)
	- Are there multiple levels of conformance identified? ("fully,"
"minimally," "well-formed" etc.)
	- If so, how relevant are the various levels to Section 508?

6. To what extent does a standard address compatibility with relevant
assistive technologies?
	- Are there relevant assistive technologies for the technology? 
	- If there are relevant assistive technologies and compatibility with
these is addressed in the document, how is it done? (For instance, by
requiring direct compatibility with the most common assistive technologies;
or by requiring compatibility with a consensus standard that those
assistive technologies share; or by requiring compatibility with some other
type of interoperability standard? In what manner is that interoperability
standard referenceable?)

7. Who was the document developed by?
	- Was the document developed by an industry association or ad-hoc group,
or some partnership of industry and others (disability organizations?
government? educators? etc.)?
	- If developed through a voluntary consensus process, was the process open
to organizations chosing to participate?

8. Who is using the standard or guideline?
	- To what extent is it implemented in product manufacture?
	- To what extent is it referenced for compliance?
	- Is it used in international settings?

9. What is the quality of the document? (This is obviously a more
subjective question than the others, and/or difficult to evaluate; but
existing information or reviewer's impressions here could be helpful for
initial information).
	- How clear does it seem/ is it considered to be?
	- How implementable is it considered to be?

----------
Judy Brewer    jbrewer@w3.org    +1.617.258.9741    http://www.w3.org/WAI
Director, Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) International Program Office
World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
MIT/LCS Room NE43-355, 545 Technology Square, Cambridge, MA,  02139,  USA