Evaluation

Introduction “1.3.1 Info and Relationships - Level A” If you’ve worked with WCAG 2.2, you’re familiar with this format of Success Criteria. Numbers, levels, and clear test conditions. This structure has been the standard for web accessibility for over 15 years. However, as we explored in the previous article, this approach had limitations. “Websites that pass checkboxes but are actually unusable” are proof of this. WCAG 3.0 has completely redesigned the structure itself to address this issue. It didn’t just add items—it changed the way we evaluate accessibility. ...

Introduction I just returned from the AI Agent Scenario Competition Citizen Evaluation Panel held in Seoul. The panel consisted of expert judges and citizen evaluators, with the final scores reflecting both expert evaluation and citizen evaluation. Since the evaluation details are confidential, I can’t discuss individual teams or specific results. However, through this experience, I was able to clearly define what standards I use when evaluating AI public services. So in this post, rather than “how this team performed,” I want to record what questions I asked and why I thought those questions mattered. ...

Introduction Let me be honest — this choice is a losing deal on paper. I’m spending a whole day, paying for transportation out of my own pocket, and the compensation is only about $35 (50,000 KRW). Yet, I’m heading to Seoul tomorrow. I wanted to organize my reasons step by step. View from a train window - a journey to somewhere Photo: Dieter K / Unsplash The Evaluation Panel Offer and My Decision One day, while browsing the NIA (National Information Society Agency) website as usual, I discovered the Public Institution Website Citizen Evaluation Panel. Since then, I’ve been grateful to participate in the public web/app citizen evaluation activities for two years straight. The rewards and achievements may seem small, but the process and experience have been building up as personal assets. ...