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

RE: EvalTF result review by WCAG WG

From: Vivienne CONWAY <v.conway@ecu.edu.au>
Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2012 08:29:26 +0800
To: "Velleman, Eric" <evelleman@bartimeus.nl>, "public-wai-evaltf@w3.org" <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
Message-ID: <8AFA77741B11DB47B24131F1E38227A9CAB0E4CB07@XCHG-MS1.ads.ecu.edu.au>
HI Eric & TF

I'm happy with all of the suggested changes.  I appreciate all your efforts and also the input of the WCAG WG - looking good.



Regards

Vivienne L. Conway, B.IT(Hons), MACS CT, AALIA(cs)
PhD Candidate & Sessional Lecturer, Edith Cowan University, Perth, W.A.
Director, Web Key IT Pty Ltd.
v.conway@ecu.edu.au
v.conway@webkeyit.com
Mob: 0415 383 673

This email is confidential and intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify me immediately by return email or telephone and destroy the original message.
________________________________________
From: Velleman, Eric [evelleman@bartimeus.nl]
Sent: Friday, 7 September 2012 8:26 PM
To: public-wai-evaltf@w3.org
Subject: EvalTF result review by WCAG WG

Hi EvalTF,

Yesterday, Shadi and I talked to the WCAG WG. They were enthusiastic about the new version of the document. They advised some editorial changes and one change that is more detailed. Below is a short report of the findings from the Call yesterday. I will try to incorporate the comments into a new Editor Draft and will send that around on monday. In the meantime, please have a look at the comments below and let me know if you are ok with the proposed resolutions.

1. WCAG WG asks us to change the word extends to complements. They would agree with the next proposed resolution:
Proposed Resolution: In the Abstract and Introduction section change the sentence "It extends the existing guidance for WCAG 2.0 but it does not define additional WCAG 2.0 requirements nor does it replace or supersede it in any way." to "It complements.. "

Reference: <http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20120904#introduction>

2. The WCAG WG was missing a random sampling approach in section 3.3 Step 3: Select a Representative Sample. EvalTF discussed this earlier but decided to continue this discussion about sampling after publication. WCAG WG would agree to the following proposed resolution:
Proposed Resolution: Add a sentence to the Review Note at the top of section 3 saying: "We plan to add a random sampling approach in a next version of the methodology"

Reference: <http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20120904#step3>

3. WCAG WG asks us to remove the word "Primary" from the definition of Common Functionality and replacing it by another term. They feel this term could give people the impression that one is enough. Because we expect to need more time to come up with a good alternative, they could agree with the following proposed resolution. EvalTF could then take this up further after publication:
Proposed Resolution: Remove "Primary" and place a Review Note saying: "We are searching for input on this definition. We previously used the terms key functionality and primary functionality in this definition, but are searching for a better term".

Reference: <http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20120904#functionality>

4. Although we had lengthy discussions about section 3.4.2 Step 4.b, WCAG WG feels that an editorial change is necessary. They will provide input for that.
Proposed Resolution: Input from WCAG WG

Reference: <http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20120904#step4b>

5. WCAG WG spotted a paragraph that could be misread in section 3.1.4 Step 1.d: Define the Context of Website Use. They thought the evaluator would need to test with the same set of tools all the time. They feel more discussion is necessary, but we could repair it for the moment by changing the text to clarify our intent as in the proposed resolution:

Current text: "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."

Proposed Resolution: "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 that 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."

Reference: <http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20120904#step1d>

Many thanks to you all!
Kindest regards,

Eric

This e-mail is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient you must not disclose or use the information contained within. If you have received it in error please return it to the sender via reply e-mail and delete any record of it from your system. The information contained within is not the opinion of Edith Cowan University in general and the University accepts no liability for the accuracy of the information provided.

CRICOS IPC 00279B
Received on Saturday, 8 September 2012 00:30:43 GMT

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