EvalTF open survey

Dear all,

Please look at survey 18. This one is based on our discussion last week (about the questions and answers in surveys 15 and 16).

https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/48225/evaltfq18/

For those who do not have access to the survey at the moment, there are two proposed rewrites (accept proposed rewrite; accept proposed rewrite with the following changes; do not accept for the following reasons):


#1. Proposed rewrite of Step 1.c


Based on the input from our previous telco<http://www.w3.org/2014/05/08-eval-minutes.html#item04> and the EvalTF survey 16<https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/48225/evaltfq16/results>, a rewrite. Most people indicate that the current text is alright but we should avoid that evaluators may think they should list every known UA and AT which they cannot practically test against anyway.


Start of proposed rewrite:


Particularly for new web technologies it is usually not possible that every accessibility feature, such as a 'show captions' function in a media player, is supported by every possible combination of operating system, web browser, assistive technology, and other user agents. WCAG 2.0 does not pre-define which combinations of features and technologies must be supported as this depends on the particular context of the website, including its language, the web technologies that are used to create the content, and the user agents currently available. Understanding Accessibility Support<http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/conformance#uc-accessibility-support-head> provides more guidance.


When a particular choice of operating systems, web browsers, assistive technologies, and other user agents is specified by the site owner to achieve conformance and these technologies are known to the evaluator, they should be listed here. This does not limit the evaluator from using additional operating systems, web browsers, assistive technologies and other user agents at a later point, for example to evaluate particular content that was not identified at this early stage of the evaluation process.

For some websites in closed networks, such as an intranet website where the computers used to access it are known, this baseline may be limited to the operating systems, web browsers and assistive technologies used within this closed network. However, in most cases this baseline is ideally as broad as possible to cover the majority of user agents used by people with disabilities.


End of proposed rewrite


#2. Proposed rewrite of Step 1.d


In our previous telco<http://www.w3.org/2014/05/08-eval-minutes.html> we agreed to change the title of Step 1.d<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-EM/#step1d> to: Step 1.d: Describe Evaluation Procedures for particular Success Criteria (Optional). This is based on the proposal in survey 15<https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/48225/evaltfq15/results> and some additional discussion in our EvalTF call.


Start of proposed rewrite:


There are several ways to determine conformance of WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria. For this purpose, W3C/WAI has created publicly documented (non-normative) Techniques for WCAG 2.0<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/>. These describe tests that evaluators can use to determine if a success criterion is satisfied. However, it is not necessary to use these particular techniques (see Understanding Techniques for WCAG Success Criteria<http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/understanding-techniques>). Other evaluation procedures may also be used, such as (new) techniques developed by other organizations. These procedures should meet the requirements for 'other techniques'<http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/understanding-techniques>. The evaluation could also use other documented evaluation procedures by organizations to operationalize the evaluation (for instance in a more fine-grained way).


WCAG 2.0 conformance can be determined without the use of documented evaluation procedures. It is however good practice to refer to the initial evaluation procedures to be used, in advance of the evaluation. This helps to ensure consistent expectation between the evaluator and the evaluation commissioner. This does not limit the evaluator from using other additional evaluation procedures at a later point, for example to evaluate particular content that was not identified at this early stage of the evaluation process.


End of proposed rewrite

Kindest regards,

Eric Velleman

Received on Tuesday, 13 May 2014 12:15:33 UTC