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

WCAG-EM comments. Section 3.4 Audit the Selected Sample

From: Ramón Corominas <rcorominas@technosite.es>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 12:35:17 +0200
Message-ID: <50852165.5060107@technosite.es>
To: Eval TF <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
Dear Eval TF,

Please find below comments for Section 3.4. Please apologise for the 
delay, these are very busy days and I'm doing my best to review the 
draft in detail.

3.4 Step 4: Audit the Selected Sample

[WCAG-EM] "Depending on the level of detail for reporting...".

See my previous comment about Step 1.b. I would not use "reporting" but 
"evaluation" or "analysis". The depth of the evaluation could be 
independent of the level of detail in the report.

3.4.1 Step 4.a: Check for the Broadest Variety of Use Cases

If the target is composed (see my previous comments on this), the 
Conformance Requirement #1 would be incomplete. For example, if we 
define a target "Conformance Level AA + Sc 1.4.6 + SC 1.4.9", checking 
CR #1 would mean: "level AA", but we should check also the two 
additional SC.

Please note that the first note in CR #1 and the "Optional components of 
a Conformance Claim" section encourage composed targets:

"Note 1: Although conformance can only be achieved at the stated levels, 
authors are encouraged to report (in their claim) any progress toward 
meeting success criteria from all levels beyond the achieved level of 

Optional components: "A list of success criteria beyond the level of 
conformance claimed that have been met. This information should be 
provided in a form that users can use, preferably machine-readable 

[Ed, global] As someone commented, repeating the links to definitions 
every time a word appears is a bit annoying. At least I would eliminate 
repetitions in the same paragraph. For example, the Note about 
"templates" has 5 instances of the word "templates" with link (and one 
without), 4 instances of "web page" and 2 of "website".

3.4.2 Step 4.b: Use WCAG 2.0 Techniques and Failures Where Possible 

[Ed] I would always incude "optional" steps after all the "mandatory" steps.

See my comment about Sufficient Techniques and accessibility support,

I like the explanation of "A SC is met when...". Nevertheless, I would 
also add the possibility of a failure affecting only to content that is 
not relied upon, since it does not need to fully meet the SC, only to 
"not interfere" (as per CR #5)

3.4.4 Step 4.d: Archive Web Pages for Reference (Optional)

Part of this step should not be "optional". At least the URIs must be 
recorded and included in the report, so the evaluation can be verified 
by other evaluator, or used by the web owner to understand the issues 
and solve them.

Again, "Depending on the level of detail for reporting..." should be 
changed to "level of detail for evaluating".

Kind regards,

Ramón Corominas
Accessibility specialist
Technosite - Fundación ONCE
+34 91 121 0330
Received on Monday, 22 October 2012 10:38:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:40:23 UTC