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

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

From: Detlev Fischer <detlev.fischer@testkreis.de>
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 09:21:19 +0200
Cc: Eval TF <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
Message-Id: <E0090102-DC2D-49F6-A6B2-D369DED80434@testkreis.de>
To: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
I am glad that we are reminded by WCAG Working Group that what we do  
is informative and that our methodology need not be the only way to  
evaluate sites against WCAG 2.0. For me, this simply means that WCAG- 
EM will be judged on its merits: Is it an efficient and at the same  
time sufficiently reliable way to judge the conformance of sites?

I am also glad that we are reminded not to overstep WCAG requirements  
(though it would behelpful if WCAG WG indicated what those points are).

I think WCAG-EM, seen as a methodology competing with other  
approaches, could fail (that is: fail to be adopted) in basically two  
ways:

    (1) being so bland that it hardly adds anything beyond the  
normative text of WCAG 2.0,
        leaving all the tricky stuff to the evaluator to work out on  
his or her own.
        Failing to describe how to include dynamic page states /  
processes would be one example.

    (2) being so demanding and prescriptive that it may be found to be  
inapplicable or
        simply too cumbersome to follow, given a limited time and budget



On 17 Aug 2012, at 08:41, Shadi Abou-Zahra wrote:

> 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)
>>
>>
>
>
>

-- 
Detlev Fischer
testkreis - das Accessibility-Team von feld.wald.wiese
c/o feld.wald.wiese
Borselstraße 3-7 (im Hof)
22765 Hamburg

Tel   +49 (0)40 439 10 68-3
Mobil +49 (0)1577 170 73 84
Fax   +49 (0)40 439 10 68-5

http://www.testkreis.de
Beratung, Tests und Schulungen für barrierefreie Websites
Received on Friday, 17 August 2012 07:10:40 GMT

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