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

Overview of changes in new draft

From: Velleman, Eric <evelleman@bartimeus.nl>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 22:04:02 +0000
To: "public-wai-evaltf@w3.org" <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
Message-ID: <3D063CE533923349B1B52F26312B0A46782566@s107ma.bart.local>
Dear all,

Below is a general overview of the changes I made in the latest editors draft of the WCAG 2.0 Evaluation Methodology.

Previous version: <http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20120209>
New version: <http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20120222>

The changes are based on the discussion on the list and during the Telco

1. Failures and techniques
Should we include the level of detail needed for reporting? Some propose to be as specific as possible but point to the different possible levels without saying that a certain detail is necessary. Outcome of discussion:
a) We do not want to utilize techniques as checkpoints
- Done, this will not be done in the evaluation clause and in the reporting clause

b) We guide evaluators so they can use it
- Done? Not sure if this is enough in the introduction of clause 5(Evaluation)

2. We need to add info about accessibility support
Added a subclause 5.4 (replacing the barrier recognition subclause that we decided had to be deleted). Accessibility supported is also covered in the introduction of 5 (Evaluation), 5.2 (Technologies) and 6.2 (Accessibility supported). We will cover it now in this subclause. I also left it in subclause 6.2 for the moment because WCAG2.0 relates it to Conformity. We will discuss that later.
- Done

3. Repair suggestions
Do we give repair suggestions: It is a decision of the expert who is doing the evaluation or providing the service. linking to W3C guidelines. You have to expect ongoing discussion with evaluator. Intention is to guide them to best-practices.
Include this into the proposal under point 4 below in option 3.
- Done

4. Proposal by Kerstin:
Added the proposal to the report template in the appendix C. Also added it to clause 5 Evaluation and section 7. Note: In option 3, I took out the usability part at the end because the methodology does not address that. Also I added the requirements as they are inside WCAG2.0 to all sections and indicated where we require more than WCAG2.0 inside the conformance section.
- Done

I also added some information that could be useful in evaluation reports following or discussions earlier and input from evaluation schemes into the list proposed above. This includes approx:
 Date of the evaluation
 Title, version and URI of the WCAG guidelines used
 Level of conformity
 Succescriteria that are also passed above the level of conformance
 Description of the website that has been evaluated including a general description of what was included and what was not included
 Technologies that have been evaluated and not evaluated and their versions
 Partial conformance claims
- Done

5. Add to clause 5 what was proposed on the list (Detlev and discussion about his proposal) Make some comments where there is discussion like on using techniques as checkpoints and requirement to evaluate all SC for all pages. Referred to Stop Criteria but we have to discuss that more.
- Done

6. Editorial changes:
a) [1.4 Web page] Some consistency is needed. Is it "web page" or "webpage"? Is it "web site" or "website"? Please unify.
- Done (website, web page)

b) [3. Paragraph 2. Word "Office"] Why uppercase? Are you thinking about a particular office application or suite?
- Done (Yes, referring to Office as a software package not thinking about any specific vendor)

c) [4. Paragraph 1. Last sentence] Editorial comment. This last sentence is confusing and needs rewriting.
- Done, I deleted the last sentence. It is adressed in the subclauses.

7. Add global and regional to possible failures for frequency in clause with terminology. Also delete barrier from the terminologies.
- Done

8. We also received comments from Loic Martinez. These will be discussed in the next telco after 23 february. The editorial issues have been changes in this version.

Kindest regards,

Received on Wednesday, 22 February 2012 22:04:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:40:20 UTC