Learning Intentions
- Students will understand how to evaluate a website’s adherence to the Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) guidelines.
- Students will be able to assess a website’s internationalisation features and adaptability for global audiences.
- Students will evaluate security and privacy measures implemented on websites according to W3C standards.
Syllabus Outcome
Outcome SE-12-05: Explains the social, ethical, and legal implications of software engineering on the individual, society, and the environment.
Lesson Activity
Research Task
Today’s lesson is a research task, where you are taking control of the knowledge you learn.
The Research Question
How effectively does a website adhere to the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) standards for accessibility, internationalisation, security, privacy, and data interoperability?
Research Task
You will work in a small group to evaluate an existing website for its compliance with the guidelines and standards set by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). The evaluation must focus on the following key areas:
Web Accessibility:
Investigate how well the website aligns with the Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) guidelines. Identify any barriers that might prevent users with disabilities from fully accessing the site.
Internationalisation:
Assess the website’s ability to cater to a global audience. Consider factors such as language options, cultural sensitivity, and adaptability to different regional settings.
Web Security and Privacy:
Evaluate the website’s implementation of security and privacy measures as per W3C standards. Identify any potential vulnerabilities or privacy concerns.
Process
Research:
Each group will start by researching W3C’s role in web development, focusing on the key areas mentioned above.
Evaluation:
Groups will then select an existing website to evaluate. They will use W3C’s guidelines as a benchmark to assess the website’s strengths and weaknesses.
Report:
Groups will compile their findings into a report or presentation that includes:
- A summary of the website being evaluated.
- Detailed analysis of how well the website meets W3C standards in each of the key areas.
- Recommendations for improvements to bring the website into better compliance with W3C guidelines.
Presentation:
These are just suggestions, but you can use any presentation tool you want.
Examples
You’re welcome to choose your own website, but here are a few you can use if you like.
Assessment Criteria
Criteria | A (Outstanding) | B (High) | C (Sound) | D (Basic) | E (Limited) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Understanding of W3C Standards | Demonstrates an outstanding understanding of W3C standards and effectively applies this knowledge to the evaluation. | Demonstrates a high level of understanding of W3C standards with some minor gaps or areas for improvement. | Demonstrates a sound understanding of W3C standards but may lack depth in certain areas. | Demonstrates a basic understanding of W3C standards with significant gaps or inaccuracies. | Demonstrates limited understanding of W3C standards with little or no application to the evaluation. |
Thoroughness of Evaluation | Conducts an outstanding and thorough evaluation of the website, covering all key areas comprehensively. | Conducts a thorough evaluation, though some areas may not be fully explored. | Conducts a sound evaluation, covering most key areas with some minor omissions. | Conducts a basic evaluation, with significant omissions in key areas. | Conducts a limited evaluation, missing most key areas. |
Quality of Recommendations | Provides outstanding, practical, and highly relevant recommendations for improvement. | Provides high-quality recommendations that are mostly practical and relevant. | Provides sound recommendations, though they may be general or lack practicality. | Provides basic recommendations that may lack relevance or practicality. | Provides limited or no recommendations, with little relevance to the evaluation. |
Professionalism | The report/presentation is outstandingly clear, well-organised, and professional in its delivery. | The report/presentation is clear, well-organised, and mostly professional. | The report/presentation is clear but may lack organisation or professionalism in some areas. | The report/presentation lacks clarity, organisation, or professionalism. | The report/presentation is unclear, poorly organised, and lacks professionalism. |