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.

1. IMPLEMENTING WEB ACCESSIBILITY
THE MIPAW APPROACH
Authors
Jean-Pierre VILLAIN (Qelios) - @villainjp
Olivier NOURRY (Qelios) - @OlivierNourry
Dominique BURGER (UPMC INSERM, BrailleNet)
Denis BOULAY (BrailleNet)
ICCHP 2012
@Qelios

2. BrailleNet & AccessiWeb expert network
BrailleNet
• French non for profit organization
• Promotes e-Accessibility
• Digital Library for the print disabled
• European e-Accessibility Forum
• AccessiWeb
AccessiWeb = ressources and methods
• To facilitate the understanding and
implementation of the WCAG 2.0
• To verify conformance to WCAG 2.0
2012 • To support the AccessiWeb certification scheme
AccessiWeb = Professional Expert Network
(450 members, 260 organisations)

3. MIPAW Project Partners
2011

4. Presentation Outlines
• Two approaches to Web Accessibility
• MIPAW objective and method
• First findings
• MIPAW and WCAG 2.0 Conformance
2012 • Conclusion

5. Two approaches
Excellence-based approach Gradual approach
Conformance Requirement Means Conformance Requirement Means
s s
= Goal Maximal Controls = Indicator Relative Quality
Certification Management
Advantages Advantages
Service to users, Guarantees Mastered, Adaptable
2012
Main Risks Main Risks
Over-quality, strongly Impacts the Users under-served,
project accessibility at low priority
Accessibility dropped out

6. The Ambition of MIPAW
2012 To build a methodology combining
advantages of the excellence-based and the
gradual approaches and addressing concrete
user expectations

7. User’s expectations …
To be able to access and to use
information, isn’t it ?
2012
Can WCAG 2.0 be viewed from this point ?

8. Preliminary Findings
2012

9. First Findings
Criteria (AccessiWeb Check list) A AA AAA Total
Critical for access to information 35 3 7 45
Non-critical, with strong impact 33 10 16
88
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
2012 accessing information. They cover all three levels.
•All three WCAG levels are represented in each set of
criteria

10. MIPAW Classification
Criteria (AccessiWeb Check list) A AA AAA Total
Critical for access to information 35 3 7 45
Non-critical, with strong impact 33 10 16
88
Non-critical, with weak or null impact 14 7 8
Access to
Access to
information
information
Group 1
Group 1 Group 2
Group 2
2012 20 criteria
20 criteria 59 criteria
59 criteria
Presence/
Presence/ Strong
Strong
absence
absence 29 criteria
29 criteria impact
impact
25 criteria
25 criteria Weak
Weak
impact
impact
Relevance
Relevance

11. 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 information
Access to information
Critical UX Improvement
2012
• Excellence-based approach • Gradual approach
• No exception allowed • Flexible

12. MIPAW and WCAG Conformance
Compatibility with WCAG levels and conformance
100% WCAG conformance on each level is reached when criteria are met in the
4 groups, for the considered WCAG level.
Access to information
Access to information
Essential Device
UX Improvement
2012
WCAG Conformance

13. 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.
2012
•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

14. Thank you !
Questions ?
We are interested in broader cooperation …
Jean-Pierre VILLAIN (Qelios) - @villainjp
Olivier NOURRY (Qelios) - @OlivierNourry
Dominique BURGER (UPMC INSERM, BrailleNet) dominique.burger@upmc.fr
Denis BOULAY (BrailleNet) dboulay@accessiweb.org
ICCHP 2012
@Qelios