Minor Comments on WCAG-EM January 30 draft

Dear Eval Task Force, 


Below are a few comments on the latest January 30, 2014 working draft of the Website Accessibility Conformance Evaluation Methodology (WCAG-EM) 1.0. 




1. Spelling mistake - methodolody 


Location: Introduction 
Sentence: "The methodolody can be used in conjunction with techniques for meeting WCAG 2.0 success criteria, such as..." 
Suggest: Methodology instead of methodolody 





2. Grammar suggestion - result in rather than result into 


Location: Relation to WCAG 2.0 Conformance Claims 
Sentence: "Thus in the majority of situations, using this methodology alone does not result into WCAG 2.0 conformance claims for the target websites." 
Suggest: Changing sentence to "...using this methodology alone does not result in WCAG 2.0 conformance claims for the target websites." 




3. Optional Clarification - adherence 


Location: Step 3 - Methodology Requirement 3 
Sentence: "Website development process — lower adherence requires a larger sample to evaluate; consider the following:" 
Suggest: Although it would make for a longer title, you could change "Website development process" to "Adherence to the Website Development Process" just to fit with the rest of the titles, as well as clarify to what people are supposed to be adhere to. 




4. Aggregated Score - word missing 


Location: Step 5.d: Provide an Aggregated Score (Optional) 
Sentence: This particular score sensitive towards failures but insensitive towards their relative frequency. 
Suggestion: Changing sentence to "This particular score is sensitive..." 





5. Spelling mistake - failire 



Location : Step 5.d: Provide an Aggregated Score (Optional) 
Sentence : For example, a single failure will yield a high score even if that one failire is an inaccessible CAPTCHA that prevents access to the entire website. 
Suggest: failure instead of failire 





6. Aggregated Score - general thoughts 


Location: Step 5.d: Provide an Aggregated Score (Optional) 



If the purpose of the aggregated score is to give a sense of progress over time, I am assuming then that the end goal is for all pages to be sufficient for all success criteria. My only concern however is that once two websites pass all the success criteria, they both have the same (highest) score regardless of whether one is an extremely accessible website, while the other has only done the bare minimum of what is necessary. 


Is it possible that, once a site fulfills all of the success criteria, there is an opportunity for a bonus point, to show that a website has gone beyond the sufficient requirements? 




I hope this email has been helpful. 




Best, 
Miranda 




-- 

Miranda Mafe 
AODA Web Analyst III, Web Solutions 
Computing and Communications Services (CCS) 
University of Guelph 

519-824-4120 Ext. 56475 
mmafe@uoguelph.ca 
www.uoguelph.ca/ccs