Evaluation Subscribe to Evaluation RSS feed

↻ 2026-07-30 Updated This post reflects the W3C Working Draft of March 3, 2026. Foundational was renamed to Core, so related wording has been corrected, and the Assertions count (28) and their role in level determination have been updated to match the current draft. Introduction In Atomic Tests vs. Holistic Tests: A New Testing Methodology, we discussed balancing Atomic and Holistic tests. Now we need to address how we’ll “assert” and “document” these results. This is where Assertions come in. ...

↻ 2026-07-30 Updated This post reflects the W3C Working Draft of March 3, 2026. It accounts for Foundational being renamed to Core, and the basis-document reference has been corrected to the current draft. Introduction When people hear “accessibility testing,” they often think of a checklist: “Does this button have alternative text?” “Is the contrast ratio high enough?” WCAG 2.2 is built around clear pass/fail checks like these. WCAG 3.0 moves toward a broader unit of evaluation, aiming to consider overall user experience quality. That shift naturally changes how we test. We now combine fine-grained checks (Atomic) with real-world contextual evaluation (Holistic). ...

↻ 2026-09-10 Updated The Working Draft of September 10, 2026 changed the conformance model again. Bronze/Silver/Gold below are no longer conformance levels. The September draft sets a single conformance line (all core requirements met) and moves the levels into reporting tiers below and above conformance. Core requirements now carry severity tags (Physical harm, Risk, Barrier, Friction), and the conformance section moved from Exploratory to Developing. The body below still reflects the March draft; the new structure is covered in What Changed in the WCAG 3 September 2026 Draft. ↻ 2026-07-30 Updated ...

↻ 2026-07-30 Updated Numbers and terminology have been corrected to reflect the W3C Working Draft of March 3, 2026. The requirement count has been corrected from 170+ to 153 (Core 92 + Supplemental 61), and Foundational has been replaced with Core. The widely-circulated figure of “174” is not traceable to a source, so it has not been used here. 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. ...

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. ...