W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wcag-em-comments@w3.org > April 2012

Oracle comments on the 27 March 2012 W3C Working Draft of the Website Accessibility Conformance Evaluation Methodology 1.0

From: Peter Korn <peter.korn@oracle.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 12:27:14 -0700
Message-ID: <4F906712.4090908@oracle.com>
To: public-wcag-em-comments@w3.org
CC: Peter Korn <Peter.Korn@oracle.com>
Below are the comments from Oracle Corporation on 
http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-WCAG-EM-20120327/ - the  27 March 2012 W3C 
Working Draft of the Website Accessibility Conformance Evaluation 
Methodology 1.0

 1. In the Abstract and/or the Introduction, it would be helpful to note
    the 3rd bullet objective from
    http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/2011/eval/eval-ws - that of "Aggregating
    individual results into an overall conformance statement; this
    includes defining approaches for assessing the relative impact on
    failures, potentially through incorporating tolerance metrics."

 2. In 1.2 Target audience, it may be useful to recognize some of the
    needs of these disparate audience members.  For example, the four
    bullet under "Other audiences..." includes policy makers and project
    managers - who will also need a way to evaluate not only the extent
    to which a website / web application is meeting WCAG 2.0, but the
    extent to which support for WCAG 2.0 is improving from one
    evaluation to another - to assess the "progress toward done" that a
    website / web application is making.

 3. 1.4 Terms and Definitions defines the term "Key Functionality". 
    Might it be useful to also define "Ancillary Functionality"?

 4. Requirement 2.d talks about the identifying the technologies relied
    upon to provide the website.  It might also be helpful to note the
    UI component sets & versions, if any, used (e.g. "JQuery UI version
    1.9").  Particularly for web applications, much of the accessibility
    support is built into the UI component sets.  It would also be
    appropriate to include Java in the list of auxiliary web
    technologies.  Finally, the word "auxillary" is misspelled.

 5. In the Appendix C Template Reports, the examples all list "Person
    who did the evaluation".  This will not always be appropriate - e.g.
    in a self-assessment from a corporation of its own website or web
    application, this should often be the corporation's name and not an
    individual name.

 6. Also in Appendix C Template Reports, more example information would
    be helpful with respect to what the results should look like (in the
    penultimate bullet "Results: per guidelines, checkpoint...")


Regards,

Peter

-- 
Oracle <http://www.oracle.com>
Peter Korn | Accessibility Principal
Phone: +1 650 5069522 <tel:+1%20650%205069522>
500 Oracle Parkway | Redwood City, CA 94065
Green Oracle <http://www.oracle.com/commitment> Oracle is committed to 
developing practices and products that help protect the environment
Received on Thursday, 19 April 2012 19:27:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 19 April 2012 19:27:49 GMT