W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wai-evaltf@w3.org > August 2012

Fwd: Re: [heads-up] updated Editor Draft of WCAG-EM being finalized

From: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 08:41:32 +0200
Message-ID: <502DE79C.30601@w3.org>
To: Eval TF <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
Dear Eval TF,

Please find below the feedback from WCAG WG on our current Editor Draft. 
Eric and I will be processing these and make suggestions.

Thoughts and comments on this feedback is welcome.

Best,
   Shadi


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [heads-up] updated Editor Draft of WCAG-EM being finalized
Resent-Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 21:51:58 +0000
Resent-From: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 14:51:28 -0700
From: Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>
To: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>, Eric Velleman <E.Velleman@bartimeus.nl>
CC: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org

Shadi and Eric,

The WCAG WG feedback on the current draft can be found at :

<http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/20120816misc/results>

Here are some of the major concerns that emerged from our discussion:

* This note reads very prescriptively for an informative document. If it is
meant to be normative, the task force should recharter to produce a
normative document. Otherwise, the "requirement" and  "conformance"
language should be softened.

*  Need to clarify the scope of this effort, because of WCAG concern that
this not be interpreted as the only acceptable methodology for evaluating
WCAG conformance.

* There were many concerns about language restricting this methodology to
entire web sites. This goes beyond WCAG. If this is being presented as the
endorsed methodology for evaluating WCAG conformance, it should not impose
requirements beyond WCAG. This happens in a number of places in this draft.

* There are normative references to other content on the ER web site. While
we think this other information makes good background reading, if the
requirements of the methodology specifically relies on it, then it needs to
be in this document. (Example: Section 2.3: " Specific guidance is provided
in Selecting Web Accessibility Evaluation
Tools<http://www.w3.org/WAI/eval/selectingtools>
.").

* The concept of "key" or "primary" functionality could be misused. Perhaps
you meant "commonly used"?

* Some presentational issues: disposition of editor's notes; insufficient
descriptions for diagrams; lists difficult to read.

Let us know if you have any questions about the comments.

Thanks,
Loretta and Gregg

On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 7:44 AM, Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org> wrote:

> Dear WCAG WG,
>
> Eval TF is currently finalizing edits on an updated Editor Draft of
> Website Accessibility Conformance Evaluation Methodology 1.0. Please feel
> free to pre-review it and give us any feedback you may have.
>
> We expect to bring this document to WCAG WG for publication approval
> within the coming weeks so your feedback at this stage is helpful.
>
> Please find the Editor Draft including a summary of changes made in
> Appendix D of the document:
>  - <http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/**conformance/ED-methodology-**20120730<http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20120730>
> >
>
> Regards,
>   Shadi
>
> --
> Shadi Abou-Zahra - http://www.w3.org/People/**shadi/<http://www.w3.org/People/shadi/>
> Activity Lead, W3C/WAI International Program Office
> Evaluation and Repair Tools Working Group (ERT WG)
> Research and Development Working Group (RDWG)
>
>
Received on Friday, 17 August 2012 06:42:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:52:14 GMT