W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wai-evaltf@w3.org > February 2013

Re: Technologies relied upon: comment on WCAG-EM 1.0 editors draft

From: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 16:16:46 +0100
Message-ID: <511BAE5E.3000209@w3.org>
To: public-wai-evaltf@w3.org
Dear Jason,

Thank you for these comments!

As we are in the process of publishing an updated public Working Draft 
based on this Editor Draft, we would like to consider your comments as 
part of the public comments for that upcoming public Working Draft.

Many thanks,

On 11.2.2013 10:05, Jason White wrote:
> The following comments apply to the 28 January 2013 editors draft. As I have
> not participated in this process, my observations may be misguided or
> redundant (that's the risk one takes as a public commentator).
> This is an excellent document and a pleasure to review. I only have one
> substantive issue to mention.
> The list of technologies relied upon by the Website, per WCAG 2.0 conformance
> requirements, is introduced only at step 2.d of the evaluation procedure,
> where the evaluator is required to examine the Website to identify the
> technologies to be included in the list. However, this list of relied upon
> technologies can also be used as follows in an accessibility evaluation:
> Step I: Determine a list of technologies which the evaluator considers it
> appropriate for the Website to "rely upon". This list may be derived, for
> example, from information about the technologies (including specific version
> thereof) likely to be available to members of the intended audience of the
> Website who have disabilities. Let's call it the "target list of technologies
> relied upon".
> Step II: perform step 2.d of the evaluation as defined in WCAG-EM.
> Step III: Identify technologies relied upon (per step II) which are not
> included in the target list of technologies relied upon. Report such
> discrepancies and, if a detailed report is to be given, specify the WCAG 2.0
> success criteria which rely upon technologies not included in the target list.
> Obviously, the list of technologies relied upon need not be used as described
> above, but I think it is the intent of some evaluators to apply it in this
> fashion and, as I remember, this was recognized in the formative discussions
> of this topic during the development of WCAG 2.0.
> If this approach is considered desirable, then I propose the following
> amendments to the methodology:
> 1. Insert step I (above) as an optional component of step 1 of the
> methodology.
> 2. Insert step III above appropriately as an optional component of step 5 of
> the methodology.
> I hope these comments are helpful.

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 Wednesday, 13 February 2013 15:17:15 UTC

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