Comment on the editor draft

Here's something I found in reading this morning, but didn't have a chance
to bring up during the call:

Purposes for this methodology section:
   · Currently says '...evaluate the accessibility of AN EXISTING website'
      rather than just saying '...evaluate the accessibility of A WEBSITE'.
      I concerned that people might confuse this verbiage with AODA type
      wording for new vs. existing websites. My thinking is that you could
      also use this methodology for a new website, so would prefer that
      ‘existing’ is not part of the language here.  In IBM new 'websites'
      or web applications are often created by a large multinational team,
      with a single small team performing the accessibility evaluation.
      Evaluating every nuance using WCAG conformance (all content per page)
      isn't possible, so it would be better to to have an Accessibility
      Conformance Evaluation Statement to document our procedures, what was
      tested, and the results than to not be able to claim anything at all.

Perhaps we can discuss this at next week's call.


Best regards,


Mary Jo Mueller
IBM Research ► Human Ability & Accessibility Center
11501 Burnet Road, Bldg. 904 Office 5D017, Austin, Texas 78758
512-286-9698 T/L 363-9698
maryjom@us.ibm.com


www.ibm.com/able and w3.ibm.com/able
IBM Accessibility on Facebook ▼ IBMAccess on Twitter ▼ IBM Accessibility on
LinkedIn
“If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and
become more, you are a leader.”  ~ John Quincy Adams