- From: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
- Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2012 19:39:16 -0400
- To: "'Shadi Abou-Zahra'" <shadi@w3.org>, "'Eric Velleman'" <E.Velleman@bartimeus.nl>
- CC: "'WCAG WG'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, "'Eval TF'" <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>, "Loretta Guarino Reid" <lorettaguarino@google.com>, "'Gregg Vanderheiden'" <gv@trace.wisc.edu>, "Michael Cooper" <cooper@w3.org>
HI Shadi First off.... thanks so much to both you and Eric for staying up so late to meet with the group ... I understand how hard it is to gain consensus, and it would have been better if I'd closely examined the document earlier in the week and done this in standard comment fashion on a survey... I know how committed you both are to this project and to accessibility in general...I [[ This definition of target users and tools needs to meet the terms defined in WCAG 2.0 Level of Assistive Technology Support Needed for "Accessibility Support" and needs to be supported throughout the website. For example, if one part of a website is accessible using one set of tools that is different from a set of tools is needed to access another part of the same website then the website is effectively not accessible for some users. Accessibility support needs to be uniform throughout a single website. ]] Your proposed edit addresses my major concern from a testing perspective... I agree in general that if half the site only works with voice over and half only works with JAWS, it can be a problem... and I don't want to hold up the draft ... which we can address next time... which would be... "whether we are overstepping WCAG if we use the word "need" to require that the entire site has to be spec'ed to run on all the same AT... I think it's a good thing for a site to be uniformly accessibility supported ... but not absolutely sure it should be a requirement of this methodology, especially for huge web sites that have lots of different authors and lots of different accessibility consultants on different sections of it... But for now your edit is ok for me to say, let's publish the draft ... and take it up on the other side... Cheers David MacDonald CanAdapt Solutions Inc. "Enabling the Web" www.Can-Adapt.com -----Original Message----- From: Shadi Abou-Zahra [mailto:shadi@w3.org] Sent: September-06-12 6:27 PM To: David MacDonald; Eric Velleman Cc: WCAG WG; Eval TF Subject: 3.1.4 Step 1.d: Define the Context of Website Use Hi David, Ref: <http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20120904#step1d> During the WCAG WG you spotted a paragraph that could be misread: [[ This definition of target users and tools must meet the terms defined in WCAG 2.0 Level of Assistive Technology Support Needed for "Accessibility Support" and must be used throughout the evaluation. For example, it is not possible to evaluate some pages with one set of tools and other pages with another set. Accessibility support must be uniform throughout a single website. ]] AFAIK the intent was not that the evaluator needs to test with the same set of tools but rather that there is consistent support for a minimum set of browsers and assistive technologies across the website. How about this suggestion to replace the paragraph above: [[ This definition of target users and tools needs to meet the terms defined in WCAG 2.0 Level of Assistive Technology Support Needed for "Accessibility Support" and needs to be supported throughout the website. For example, if one part of a website is accessible using one set of tools that is different from a set of tools is needed to access another part of the same website then the website is effectively not accessible for some users. Accessibility support needs to be uniform throughout a single website. ]] Does that address your concern? 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)
Received on Thursday, 6 September 2012 23:39:57 UTC