topical media & game development

topical media & game development

[] readme course(s) preface I 1 2 II 3 4 III 5 6 7 IV 8 9 10 V 11 12 afterthought(s) appendix reference(s) example(s) resource(s) _

lib-present-course-webtechnology-assignments-assignment-4.htm / htm


  <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
   "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
  
  <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
  
  <head>
    <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"/>
    <title>WT - Assignment "Accessibility"</title>
    <link href="lib-present-course-webtechnology-style-note.css"
          rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" />  
  </head>
  
  <body>
  
  <h1>Assignment "Accessibility"</h1>
  
  <h2>Learning goals</h2>
  
  <p>After the assignment the student should:</p>
  <ul>
    <li>be able to understand the principles underlying accessible Web design;</li>
    <li>be able to conduct a basic accessibility evaluation based on the
    W3C checkpoints;</li> 
    <li>have gained experience in writing a technical evaluation report;</li>
    <li>have gained experience in presenting results to a non-technical
    audience, both in written and in oral form.</li>
  </ul>
  
  <p><strong>Background:</strong> This exercise builds on the subjects
  students have learned during the first three assignments. You will
  need knowledge about HTML, CSS and scripting to understand the issues
  involved in evaluating accessibility. Many principles of accessible
  design are actually principles of usability design in general. </p>
  
  <h2>The assignment</h2>
  
  <ul>
    <li>Select a major Dutch site to conduct a accessibility
    evaluation. Groups should as much as possible select different
    sites. Consult the student assistant to check whether your choice is
    acceptable. In the <a href="suggestions">appendix</a> you can find a
    few suggestions. </li> 
    <li>Check the accessibility of the site with the help of the <a href="http://www.w3c.nl/Vertalingen/2000/WAI-WEBCONTENT/ijkpunt-lijst.html#wc-priority-1">W3C
    Accessibility Checkpoints</a>. Select 4-6 typical pages of the Web
    site to base your evaluation on.</li>
    <li>Write a technical report about the results, typically
    containing:
      <ol>
        <li>Date of the evaluation</li>
        <li>URLs of the Web site and the specific pages studied in the
        evaluation</li> 
        <li>Table detailing the results of the evaluation per
        checkpoint</li>
      </ol></li>
    <li>Write a newspaper article with a length of 250-300 words in
    which you summarize the results for a nontechnical audience. Follow
    the common structure of newspaper article: the first paragraph
    summarizes the subject and the main results; the followup paragraphs
    provide more details. Give 1-3 useful "See also" links at the end of
    the article. Add to the article also a green card (fine, maybe a few
    minor problems), a yellow card (some serious problems, but not
    disastrous) or red card (too many serious accessibility problems) 
    as the overall judgment of the Web site.</li>
    <li>Prepare a presentation of (maximum) four slides. You will be
    assigned 5 minutes to present your results to other people in
    your lab group. See the lab schedule for details of time and place. </li>
  </ul>
  
  <h2>Hints and Tips</h2>
  
  <ul>
    <li>You are free in your choice of editing tool for writing the
    report and the article. </li>
    <li>You can use the <a
    href="https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/60">Web
    Developer toolbar</a> (a Firefox add-on) to help 
    examining Web pages. With this toolbar you can easily inspect the
    CSS, disable style sheets, disable Javascript, and so on.</li>
    <li>Use you own  judgment to assign a green, yellow or red
    card.</li>
    <li>W.r.t. the presentation: in 5 minutes with 4 slides you cannot
    give a full account of what you've done. A suggested structure for
    the presentation is: 1 slide about the Web site you evaluated, 1
    slide about the overall results (including the card you assigned),
    and 2 slides with juicy details of the evaluation, e.g. a problem
    you found. </li>
  </ul>
  
  <h2>Submission details</h2>
  
  <p>Check the Blackboard site of the course for submission details. </p>
  
  <h2 id="suggestions">Appendix</h2>
  
  <p>Suggestions for Web sites to consider:</p>
  <ul>
    <li>Government slides: ministries, provinces, city councils</li>
    <li>National institutions: SER, CBR, CBS, SCP, etc.</li>
    <li>Educational institutions: universities, polytechnics,
    etc. </li>
    <li>Here are some more (random) suggestions:
      <pre>
        http://www.amsterdam.nl/
        http://www.nederlandsforensischinstituut.nl/
        http://cda.nl/
        http://www.euronext.com/
        http://top2007.radio2.nl/
        http://www.freerecordshop.nl/
        http://www.hyves.nl/
      </pre>
    </li>
  </ul>
  
  <p>
        <a href="http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=referer"
           <img
           src="http://www.w3.org/Icons/valid-xhtml10.png"
           alt="Valid XHTML 1.0!" height="31" width="88" 
           style="float: right; border-width: 0" /></a>
  </p>
  
  </body>
  </html>

[] readme course(s) preface I 1 2 II 3 4 III 5 6 7 IV 8 9 10 V 11 12 afterthought(s) appendix reference(s) example(s) resource(s) _

You may not copy or print any of this material without explicit permission of the author or the publisher. In case of other copyright issues, contact the author.