You are here : Home > 2007 evaluation results > Results for the Education and Employment category
Results for : Education and Employment
This table presents, from best to worst, the average score each Web site obtained within the Education and Employment category. Please refer to the legend at the bottom of this page to gain a better understanding of the results and the column headers.
To obtain more detailed information on the results of a particular Web site, you can purchase a report through our online ordering service by clicking on the download icon in the “Report” column of the results table, next to the item of interest. To obtain additional information on how to purchase a report, click on the image "Buy your 2007 report" in the right hand column of this page.
| # | Sites | Mention | Priority 1 errors | Priority 2 errors | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rating | Score | Grade | P | O | U | R | P | O | U | R | ||
| 1 | CNRS | Very good | 8,02 | B | 0 % | 0 % | 0 % | 33 % | 33 % | 100 % | 100 % | 100 % |
| 2 | Wikipedia | Good | 7,97 | C+ | 67 % | 33 % | 100 % | 100 % | 100 % | 100 % | 100 % | 100 % |
| 3 | UQAM | Good | 7,60 | C+ | 67 % | 0 % | 0 % | 100 % | 100 % | 100 % | 100 % | 100 % |
| 4 | Skytech communications | Good | 7,47 | C | 100 % | 0 % | 0 % | 100 % | 100 % | 100 % | 33 % | 100 % |
| 5 | Université Laval | Weak | 6,92 | D+ | 100 % | 33 % | 0 % | 100 % | 100 % | 100 % | 100 % | 100 % |
| 6 | Jobbank | Weak | 6,68 | D+ | 100 % | 33 % | 0 % | 100 % | 100 % | 100 % | 0 % | 100 % |
| 7 | Université de Montréal | Weak | 6,65 | D+ | 100 % | 33 % | 33 % | 100 % | 100 % | 100 % | 100 % | 100 % |
| 8 | Emploi Quebec | Weak | 6,49 | D | 100 % | 0 % | 0 % | 100 % | 100 % | 100 % | 100 % | 100 % |
| 9 | McGill | Very weak | 6,00 | E | 100 % | 33 % | 0 % | 100 % | 100 % | 100 % | 100 % | 100 % |
| 10 | Monster.ca | Very weak | 5,92 | E | 100 % | 33 % | 33 % | 100 % | 100 % | 100 % | 33 % | 100 % |
| 11 | Jobboom | Very weak | 5,68 | E | 100 % | 0 % | 0 % | 100 % | 100 % | 100 % | 100 % | 100 % |
| 12 | Workopolis | Very weak | 5,45 | E | 100 % | 33 % | 33 % | 100 % | 100 % | 100 % | 100 % | 100 % |
| 13 | Encyclopédie Canadienne | Very weak | 4,93 | E | 100 % | 0 % | 0 % | 100 % | 100 % | 100 % | 67 % | 100 % |
| Overall error rate | Weak | 6,60 | D+ | 87 % | 18 % | 15 % | 95 % | 95 % | 100 % | 79 % | 100 % | |
Note : Since the objective of the evaluation is to find areas of improvement for accessibility, the scoring system is based on the number of errors found and not on the number of correct elements on a given page. A score of 0% is therefore considered perfect, whereas a score of 100% means a multitude of errors were found.
Weighting system
The above scores are calculated out of 10 and take into account Priority 1 and Priority 2 checkpoints. During the evaluation, each question is weighted differently to reflect its impact on accessibility. A negative answer to the question gives no point. A positive answer gives the maximum number of points. Percentage-based questions provide a value between 0 and the maximum number of points. The final score is calculated out of 10.
More information?
If you still have questions on how to consult the results, please do not hesitate to contact us!
Legend and context
Definitions
- P / Perceivable (priority 1 or 2) : Ensure that any user can perceive the content. For example, an image without a text equivalent cannot be perceived by a blind person. Also, a sound file without a transcription cannot be perceived by a deaf person.
- O / Operable (priority 1 or 2) : Ensure that all interface elements are operable by any user. For example, a person unable to use a mouse must be able to navigate through content using a keyboard. Data tables and unstructured content make navigating difficult for people who have no overall vision of the screen and have to explore the content line by line.
- U / Understandable (priority 1 or 2) : Make content and controls understandable for as many users as possible. For example, indicating changes in language allows screen reader users to hear content descriptions in their language of choice. Simple language and coherent navigation systems make content more understandable for persons with a cognitive impairment.
- R / Robust (priority 1 or 2) : Web site content must be accessible by current or future technologies, including adaptive technologies (software or hardware allowing persons with disabilities to use a computer independently in order to access information).
Mention
The overall mention of a site is obtained by calculating the average mention of all individual pages :
- 10,0 = Meets requirements (AA)
- 9,5 à 9,99 = Excellent (A+)
- 9,0 à 9,49 = Excellent (A)
- 8,5 à 8,99 = Very good (B+)
- 8,0 à 8,49 = Very good (B)
- 7,5 à 7,99 = Good (C+)
- 7,0 à 7,49 = Good (C)
- 6,5 à 6,99 = Weak (D+)
- 6,0 à 6,49 = Weak (D)
- 3,0 à 5,99 = Very weak (E)
- 0,0 à 2,99 = Extremely weak or nil (F)
- Shared licence
. Certain rights reserved.
Study completed by AccessibilitéWeb. Development : WebConforme. Design : QuiboWeb. - Last updated : December 6, 2007.
- Accessibility.