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

Re: initial disposition of comments

From: Amy Chen <amyszuchen@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 15:40:58 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHVyp_yQAYkhm1CLRnNmRpEB8qT9m7rf=PjHSyM7upOqbE4DOQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
Cc: Eval TF <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>, Eric Velleman <evelleman@bartimeus.nl>
Hi everyone,

Shadi - Thank you for the very organized list of comments and resolutions.

Just wanted to comment on #89 for Step 1.d.

My comment was to: Take out "minimum set of web browsers and assistive
technology to evaluate for shall be defined" and take out paragraph "It is
important to also define the minimum set of web browsers and assistive
technology to evaluate for."

The resolution on the comment was: "This is part of defining "accessibility
support"; may need more discussion"

The Understanding Accessibility Support document does not mention anything
about specifically naming the web browsers or assistive technology. The
Understanding Accessibility Support document states, "This topic raises the
question of how many or which assistive technologies must support a Web
technology in order for that Web technology to be considered "accessibility
supported". The WCAG Working group and the W3C do not specify which or how
many assistive technologies must support a Web technology in order for it
to be classified as accessibility supported."
http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/conformance.html#uc-accessibility-support-head

Documenting the web browsers and assistive technology used to test may be
recommended, but not required. Conformance should be agnostic to the web
browsers and assistive technology used to test. For example, I have seen
cases where something may not work correctly with JAWS, however, if the
website was coded correctly according to standards and works with NVDA,
then it is a JAWS error and not a website conformance error. This is same
for web browsers where if something is coded correctly according to
standards and works with one browser and not another browser, then it is a
browser error and not a website conformance error. Different browsers and
assistive technologies many times behave differently interpreting the same
HTML.

Also, the WCAG section on conformance claims state that "A list of user
agents, including assistive technologies that were used to test the
content" is optional. The Website Accessibility Conformance Evaluation
Methodology is to test WCAG conformance, and the WCAG conformance claims
page states that listing user agents and assistive technologies is
optional.
http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#conformance-claims

Thanks,
Amy





On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 3:43 AM, Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org> wrote:

> Dear Eval TF,
>
> Thank you everyone who completed the survey!
>
> Please find an initial disposition of the comments received:
>  - <http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/**conformance/comments<http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments>
> >
>
> Note the section "Comments to Focus on". We will be discussing these
> comments and issues in our upcoming meetings.
>
> 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)
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 20 March 2012 23:37:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:52:13 GMT