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

provisional responses to WCAG WG comments (was Re: [heads-up] updated Editor Draft of WCAG-EM being finalized)

From: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 00:36:53 +0200
Message-ID: <503BF685.3000604@w3.org>
To: Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>
CC: Eric Velleman <E.Velleman@bartimeus.nl>, WCAG WG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, Eval TF <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
Dear Loretta, WCAG WG,

Thank you for reviewing the previous 30 July 2012 Editor Draft of the 
Website Accessibility Conformance Evaluation Methodology (WCAG-EM) 1.0.

We prepared provisional responses to these comments as well as an 
updated Editor Draft of 27 August; we invite WCAG WG to review them:
  - <http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730-WCAG>
  - <http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20120827>

This Diff shows the changes made between the previous 30 July 2012 and 
the updated 27 August 2012 Editor Drafts:
  - 
<https://www.w3.org/2007/10/htmldiff?doc1=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FWAI%2FER%2Fconformance%2FED-methodology-20120730&doc2=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FWAI%2FER%2Fconformance%2FED-methodology-20120827>

Please find further responses to some of the major concerns expressed by 
WCAG WG inline below; we would like to discuss some of these during this 
week's WCAG WG teleconference meeting.


On 16.8.2012 23:51, Loretta Guarino Reid wrote:
> 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.

We logged these as comments #7 and #12 in the disposition of comments 
linked above and would like to further discuss them with WCAG WG.


> *  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.

This is a methodology for evaluating *website* conformance to WCAG 2.0 
as per the Eval TF Work Statement:
  - <http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/2011/eval/eval-tf>

We have made some updates to the Abstract and Introduction sections to 
further clarify this scope to readers of the document.


> * 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.

As above, this methodology is specifically intended for evaluating 
*website* conformance to WCAG 2.0 rather than individual web pages.

Note that this scope and overall approach has not changes from the 
previous publication of 27 March 2012:
  - <http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-EM/>


> * 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>
> .").

It is unclear what you mean by "normative references" as this is an 
informative document. The W3C/WAI Evaluation Resource Suite provides 
complementary guidance to this methodology that only addresses one 
aspect of evaluation. All references to this resource suite are either 
from optional sections of the methodology or otherwise in a way that 
does not constitute a direct dependency to these references.


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

Partially addressed; please see comment #30 for more details.


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

Mostly addressed though we intend to work with EOWG on such aspects of 
presentation in future drafts.


> Let us know if you have any questions about the comments.
>
> Thanks,
> Loretta and Gregg

Many thanks for you valuable feedback.

Regards,
   Shadi

-- 
Shadi Abou-Zahra - 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 Monday, 27 August 2012 22:37:19 GMT

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