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

RE: Discussion about exclusions

From: Boland Jr, Frederick E. <frederick.boland@nist.gov>
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2012 07:24:24 -0500
To: "Velleman, Eric" <evelleman@bartimeus.nl>, "public-wai-evaltf@w3.org" <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
Message-ID: <D7A0423E5E193F40BE6E94126930C4930BAC883D95@MBCLUSTER.xchange.nist.gov>
we would seem to need a firm definition of "-primary- use case" then (this - particularly -primary- seems somewhat subjective and context-dependent at first thought, but I wasn't present at f2f discussion..)

Thanks and best wishes
Tim Boland NIST 

________________________________________
From: Velleman, Eric [evelleman@bartimeus.nl]
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2012 6:39 AM
To: public-wai-evaltf@w3.org
Subject: Discussion about exclusions

Dear all,

In the last survey [1], many commenters proposed to add the possibility of exclusions to section 2.1 Scope of Applicability [2]. At the moment, there is no room for exclusions besides what is described in the current version of the Methodology.

WCAG2.0 already offers the possibility for evaluators to use the concept of partial conformance to indicate that a website would be ok if a certain part would be excluded. But the commenters are proposing to not look at excluded parts at all.

A possible solution to that could be what we discussed during the Technical Plenary at Lyon and input into the survey by Shadi: "At the face-to-face we discussed an idea to describe the primary use cases of the methodology rather than the target audiences -- this allows people to reuse the methodology for many more situations without actually broadening the scope of the document."

Would this be a good approach to follow up on further?
Kindest regards,

Eric Velleman

[1] https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/48225/evaltfq5/results#x2650
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-EM/#applicability
Received on Wednesday, 5 December 2012 12:33:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:52:16 GMT