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

RE: Call for Review: Website Accessibility Conformance Evaluation Methodology (WCAG-EM)

From: Richards, Jan <jrichards@ocadu.ca>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 19:45:58 +0000
To: "public-wai-evaltf@w3.org" <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
CC: "jeanne@w3.org" <jeanne@w3.org>
Message-ID: <0B1EB1C972BCB740B522ACBCD5F48DEB03AF1937@ocadmail-maildb.ocad.ca>
- this feels very complicated (even the numbering: "3.2.3 Step 2.c") 
- plain language should be a goal where possible.
- another example of its complexity is the diagram with feedback loops. I think it should be enough just to say that "as you're going along, if you notice something amiss, don't let a prior decision not to look at it stop you from taking a closer look".

"Common Functionality"
- This is a poor term.and it is not really clarified by the definition. 
- I thought it meant perhaps a common footer on all pages...
- Do you mean the outcomes an end-user will seek? Or the tasks they perform to arrive at the outcomes?

Website Owner:
- If company X has a site on Facebook, ownership can be split.

"In the example above, none of the depicted parts may be excluded from the scope of evaluation in the context of this methodology, if it is to applied to the university website. This includes any aggregated and embedded content such as online maps for the university campus and forms for credit card transactions, including when such parts originate from third-party sources."
- But a particular history course could be evaluated if that scope was explicitly "HISTORY 100", right?

"Website with Separable Areas"
- I think too much weight is put on the password protected part. There are cases where entering a password just makes a few more things show up on the page. I think a better basis for separability needs to be found. And I lean towards flexibility here. For example, I think a library site should be able to say they meet WCAG if the home page, catalog, user account area pass, but several third-party ejournal readers do not (As long as this is clearly explained in the scope).

"3.1.4 Step 1.d: Define the Context of Website Use"
- minor: when I read this title I thought it was going to talk about what the user wanted to do (e.g. book a flight vs. a hotel)

" 3.1.2 Step 1.b: Define the Goal of the Evaluation"
- the basic report seems like a very high bar for the minimum level since it still makes use of all of the same sampling and evaluation as the other steps, it just doesn't include as much after evaluation discussion.
- sometimes what is needed is a "Partial Report" (as WCAG has partial conformance) intended to spot issues to inform ongoing development without breaking the bank.
- just noticed this is addressed in " 4.1 Initial Conformance Assessment of a Website"...I wonder if this could be brought forward...e.g. to the introduction

3.4.2 Step 4.b: Use WCAG 2.0 Techniques and Failures Where Possible (Optional)
- this is good. The WCAG 2.0 Failures, especially, are really critical when you're looking for issues.

" 3.2.3 Step 2.c: Identify the Variety of Web Page Types"
- I would pull "Templates" out into a separate section that can help to save the evaluator from the explosion of other things in this step. The pages may be complicated, but if they repeat the same complexity, it's easier to check.

" Methodology Requirement 3.b: Include at least two distinct web pages (where applicable and available) of each (1) common functionality, (2) content, design, and functionality, and (3) web technologies into the selected sample of web pages."
- this is a bit hard to parse (I know you are looking for a new term to replace common functionality)
- and two?  What if a preliminary/basic report could get away with one?

" The approach used to calculate the score must be indicated together with the numeric ratio whenever the score is provided"
- why couldn't this be optional to provide the score without the "numeric ratio"?


T 416 977 6000 x3957
F 416 977 9844
E jrichards@ocadu.ca
Received on Thursday, 27 September 2012 19:46:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:40:22 UTC