MIPAW
Model for a
Progressive Implementation
of Web Accessibility
Authors
Jean-Pierre VILLAIN (Qelios) - @villainjp
Olivier NOURRY (Qelios) - @OlivierNourry
Dominique BURGER (BrailleNet)
Web4All – April 2012
@Qelios

Currently: Methods rather than Methodologies
Excellence-based approach Gradual approach
Conformance Requirements Means Conformance Requirements Means
=Goal Maximal Controls =Indicator Relative Quality
Certification Management
2012 Advantages Advantages
Service to users, Guarantees Mastered, Adaptable
Main Risks Main Risks
Over-quality, Changes the project Users under-served, Lower priority
Tends to adapt Tends to adapt
the project the accessibility requirements
to the accessibility requirements to the project’s capacities

Limits of Excellence-based Approaches
Certification is effective, but it is not sufficient
100% conformance on
everything, Are the efforts
really better than worth the results?
100% conformance on
what is useful?
2012
We must not discard certification,
We must make it smarter

Limits of current Gradual Approaches
The constraints of the project define
how requirements are handled
WCAG levels are Measuring conformance:
not structuring What does 75%
anymore conformance mean?
Users needs are
deprioritized
2012
We need gradual implementation phases
consistent with users needs

The Basis of MIPAW
How to choose what to start with,
while addressing users’ most urgent needs?
2012

The very Primary Need…
Access to information?
2012
Can WCAG be structured with
this angle?

A Preliminary Survey
Workgroup
• 8 experts
• Accessiweb checklist
Goal
• To study the notion of « Access to information » related to user
impact
2012 Method
• Classification of each criterion on 2 axes:
• Does it prevent access to information for some users? (yes/no)
• If not, assess user impact (strong/weak)

Findings of this Preliminary Survey
Criteria 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
• All 3 WCAG levels are represented in each set
• A first set of criteria considered as critical for access to information, can
2012 be defined. Covers all 3 levels.

From Access to Information, to MIPAW
Another result appeared
A secondary classification, based on these indicators: presence, relevance, and
strength of user impact (significant or null with regards to access to
information)
Access to
information
Group 1 Group 2
Access to
Presence info:
2012 20 criteria significant
Access to impact
Relevance info: null 59 criteria
impact
25 criteria
29 criteria

Inception of MIPAW
The Model for a Progressive Implementation is based on this distribution
Principle: to distribute the criteria on an arbitrary scale, structured by the
notion of « access to information »
Access to information
Essential Device UX Improvement
3.Significant
1.Presence 2.Relevance 4.Null impact
impact
2012
Groups descriptions:
1. Securing Access to Information
2. Guaranteeing Access to Information
3. Improving User Impact
4. Improving User Experience

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
Essential Device UX Improvement
3.Significant
1.Presence 2.Relevance 4.Null impact
impact
Level A Level A Level A Level A
WCAG Conformance
Essential needs
Level AA Level AA Level AA
2012 Level AA
Level AAA Level AAA Level AAA Level AAA
In this model, the threshold « Access to information » is considered as the
pivotal point to identify essential users needs.

Outlooks for MIPAW
Some of our expectations regarding this Model for a Progressive
Implementation of Web Accessibility:
• 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
2012 approaches, and gradual strategies.
• Can support measurement systems that include defect-tolerance

Current status of MIPAW
• Community project led by Qelios and Braillenet
• 16 partners have expressed their interest (next page)
• 5 workgroups have been constituted:
Technical
Definitions
Certification Users Measurement
2012
Methodologies
• First real-size tests: end of Q2-2012
• Publication of first results: end of 2012

Partners of the MIPAW Project
2011

Thanks for your attention!
Questions?
Authors
Jean-Pierre VILLAIN (Qelios) - @villainjp
Olivier NOURRY (Qelios) - @OlivierNourry
Dominique BURGER (BrailleNet)
Web4All – April 2012
@Qelios