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

Comment WCAG-EM draft

From: <kvotis@iti.gr>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 13:58:43 +0200
Message-ID: <48de90a774ecc76e122c838762d692b5.squirrel@mail.iti.gr>
To: "public-wai-evaltf@w3.org" <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
Cc: "'Shadi Abou-Zahra'" <shadi@w3.org>
Dear Shadi, all

i would like give my vote for the acceptance of this draft. However, from
my point of view please find below some comments:

 - in section 1.2 target audience: Web accessbility consultants and
evaluation services i think it would be better the evaluation service
providers" because in this text we want to define the audience. Also the
same for the monitoring and benchmarking activities it could be
"organisations involved in Web accessibility.....activities. For the
text: Policy makers, project managers, and other decision makers who need
a standard i would propose the: Policy makers, project managers, and
other decision makers who need a standardized way for performing
accessbility evaluations

- section 1.3 - Evaluating Websites for Accessibility - A multi-page
resource suite that outlines different approaches for evaluating websites
for accessibility : I am note sure about the definition for the
text:Evaluating Websites for Accessibility---Is this a multi-page resource
- Section 1.4: become some of the terms are also used before the section
1.4 i would propose to be included in beginning of the methodology
- section 2.2: make linkage of this text with section 1.3
- section 2.3 text automatically check: i would propose to include also
semi-automatically check

-requirement 1.b: the large scale evaluations as described in the basic
conformance it could be also included to detailed review and in depth
analysis. Also, in the detailed review you are talking about Web pages. I
suggest to put Web sites or applications

-requirement 1.d: i am little bit confused with the described requirement.
Why do we need to define who uses the Website?I am not sure if we need it
- step 1.e: I am not so sure about this step..This could be modified for
including also techniques that can be assessed automatically and
techniques that could be tested by a manual way
- Regarding the selection of a representative template i ahve the
following comment:What about Websites that are being developed through
templates and these templates are the same for the most of the pages for
these Websites?

- As a general comment: i think that as a next step we have to create some
templates and some examples for providing a clearer understanding to the
evaluator who has no experience



> Hi Shadi, all,
> I voted already in the survey. In our last telco we discussed the
> techniques-issue. We've discussed this issue already in this list, so I
> just
> want to post the following from WCAG2 and a proposal for 1e:
> "Note: that all techniques are informative"
> (http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/intro.html) and the definition of
> "informative" in the glossary of WCAG2: "for information purposes and not
> required for conformance"
> (http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-WCAG20-20081211/#informativedef).
> I propose to move Step 1e: Define the Techniques to be Used (Optional) and
> the text belonging to this point into somewhere in the Report Section.
> Guided with an explicit statement, that techniques are not the
> checkpoints.
> Reason: I fear that the current version will lead to confusion about the
> character of techniques, especially when they are combined with
> "Requirement" (even when it is optional).
> As already posted in the survey: I'm missing a statement upon goodness
> criteria. But I think in the moment the document is a first draft, but we
> shouldn't leave these issues behind.
> Will there be another survey, before publishing the document?
> Best
> Kerstin
> -------------------------------------
> Kerstin Probiesch - Freie Beraterin
> Barrierefreiheit, Social Media, Webkompetenz
> Kantstra?e 10/19 | 35039 Marburg
> Tel.: 06421 167002
> E-Mail: mail@barrierefreie-informationskultur.de
> Web: http://www.barrierefreie-informationskultur.de
> XING: http://www.xing.com/profile/Kerstin_Probiesch
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/kprobiesch
> ------------------------------------
>> -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht-----
>> Von: Shadi Abou-Zahra [mailto:shadi@w3.org]
>> Gesendet: Montag, 12. M?rz 2012 16:14
>> An: Eval TF
>> Betreff: Minutes for Teleconference on 8 March 2012
>> Eval TF,
>> Please find the minutes for the teleconference on 8 March 2012:
>>   - <http://www.w3.org/2012/03/08-eval-minutes.html>
>> Next meeting: Thursday 15 March 2012.
>> 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)

Dr. Konstantinos Votis
Computer Engineer & Informatics,PhD, Msc, MBA
Research Associate
Informatics and Telematics Institute
Centre for Research and Technology Hellas
6th Klm. Charilaou - Thermi Road
P.O. BOX 60361 GR - 570 01
Thessaloniki &#8211; Greece
Tel.: +30-2311-257722
Fax : +30-2310-474128
E-mail : kvotis@iti.gr
Received on Wednesday, 14 March 2012 11:59:27 UTC

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