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

EvalTF - Changes to Editors Draft

From: Velleman, Eric <evelleman@bartimeus.nl>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 07:54:57 +0000
To: "public-wai-evaltf@w3.org" <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
Message-ID: <3D063CE533923349B1B52F26312B0A46815EB9@s107ma.bart.local>
Dear all,

Please find below an overview of the changes I made to the new editors draft of the Evaluation Methodology:

Added clarification of difference between steps '5.a' etc and 'steps taken' in Step 5.a: steps taken -> Also include any specific sequence of steps followed during the evaluation of the Sample

Following the discussion about web pages and one page web application: Added in section 3 at end of first block: … Also a web application could just be one web page. In that case, the one web page would be the only page in the sample. Also added an Editor note for discussion

Added in step 5.a: In case of an application on a single webpage, provide the above if available and information about the specific paths that have been followed during the evaluation.

Following the discussion about receiving information from the Evaluation Commissioner: Added to introduction text of Step 1: The Evaluation Commissioner can optionally also be of help to the Evaluator. By providing help in finding the use cases, complete processes, templates of the website and the technologies that are used on the website, much time can be saved.

Following discussion in the telco: in requirement 5.a added to bulletpoint 3 at the end of the sentence: Make clear what pages of the Sample are part of a complete process

Added the non optionality of URL to the text of step 4.d: Note that reporting the URL's in the sample is not optional as described in Step 5.a. Provide Documentation for Each Step.

In the appendix: Changed templates -> reporting templates

Added definition of template in section 1.4 Terms and definitions: A specific page that provides a more or less fixed framework for content. Templates are mostly used to provide the basic components of a web page (logo, menu, layout etc.). Content can be viewed when entered into the template.

Following the discussion about the need to report at least 3 instances, what if there is only one web page: added ‘if available’

Added to Step 5.a first bulletpoint: “If website parts have been identified (such as third-party content) that are known to be inaccessible these are reported including what the result would be if the parts would have been excluded from the scope.”

Added to step 1.a in the list of Examples of scope definitions for websites:  "Dutch language version of the public website of Example Inc"

Added text to Step 5.c (for discussion) and to section 4.

Kindest regards,

Eric
Received on Thursday, 10 May 2012 07:55:24 GMT

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