W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wcag-em-comments@w3.org > June 2014

[wbs] response to 'Approval for publication of WCAG-EM 1.0 as a W3C Working Group Note'

From: David MacDonald via WBS Mailer <webmaster@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2014 21:48:02 +0000
To: public-wcag-em-comments@w3.org,shadi@w3.org,e.velleman@accessibility.nl
Message-Id: <wbs-4fd9fb8d5784dd045cdbd0f3f7396596@cgi.w3.org>
The following answers have been successfully submitted to 'Approval for
publication of WCAG-EM 1.0 as a W3C Working Group Note' (public) for David
MacDonald.

> 
> ---------------------------------
> Abstract
> ----
> 
> 
> 

 * (x) accept this section
 * ( ) accept this section with the following suggestions
 * ( ) I do not accept this section for the following reasons
 * ( ) I abstain (not vote)
 


> 
> 
> ---------------------------------
> Introduction
> ----
> 
> 
> 

 * (x) accept this section
 * ( ) accept this section with the following suggestions
 * ( ) I do not accept this section for the following reasons
 * ( ) I abstain (not vote)
 


> 
> 
> ---------------------------------
> Using This Methodology
> ----
> 
> 
> 

 * ( ) accept this section
 * ( ) accept this section with the following suggestions
 * (x) I do not accept this section for the following reasons
 * ( ) I abstain (not vote)
 
Combined Expertise (Optional)
"Though this methodology can be carried out by an individual evaluator with
the skills described in the previous section (Required Expertise), using
the combined expertise of different evaluators may provide broader coverage
of the required skills and help identify accessibility barriers more
effectively..."

===========

I appreciate the first and last sentence disclaimer, but the message seems
clear... more evaluators on content is better... and it just never happens
even if more evaluators are available. We had some discussion of this
section at CSUN and at TPAC. Several veteran evaluators who have worked in
large organizations, felt that this is not the reality of how things work.
The EO document on evaluation teams is quite a few years old and none of
the known accessibility evaluation companies that I know assign several
evaluators to the same content. They often split up a site and each takes a
separate section, they are not combining expertise on the same content. I
think the current language  unnecessarily prejudices small consultancies
bidding against larger accessibility houses... 

Full disclosure... we are a small consultancy. We usually include users
with disabilities in our testing but that is a separate section of this
document... this is about evaluators. 
===============
How about something like this:
Combined Expertise (Optional)

"This methodology can be carried out by an individual evaluator with the
skills described in the previous section (Required Expertise). Using the
combined expertise of different evaluators may provide an effective way to
evaluate when some of the required expertise is missing from one team
member but is possessed by another on the team.  While not required for
using this methodology, the use of review teams may sometimes be necessary.
Using Combined Expertise to Evaluate Web Accessibility provides further
guidance on using the combined expertise of review teams, which is beyond
the scope of this document."






> 
> 
> ---------------------------------
> Scope of Applicability
> ----
> 
> 
> 

 * (x) accept this section
 * ( ) accept this section with the following suggestions
 * ( ) I do not accept this section for the following reasons
 * ( ) I abstain (not vote)
 

"...amount of replaced web pages in a fresh sample is typically ~50% though
this could be increased when web pages on a website mostly conform to WCAG
2.0."

Wondering where 50% came from?

> 
> 
> ---------------------------------
> Step 1: Define the Evaluation Scope
> ----
> 
> 
> 

 * ( ) accept this section
 * ( ) accept this section with the following suggestions
 * ( ) I do not accept this section for the following reasons
 * ( ) I abstain (not vote)
 


> 
> 
> ---------------------------------
> Step 2: Explore the Target Website
> ----
> 
> 
> 

 * ( ) accept this section
 * ( ) accept this section with the following suggestions
 * ( ) I do not accept this section for the following reasons
 * ( ) I abstain (not vote)
 


> 
> 
> ---------------------------------
> Step 3: Select a Representative Sample
> ----
> 
> 
> 

 * ( ) accept this section
 * ( ) accept this section with the following suggestions
 * ( ) I do not accept this section for the following reasons
 * ( ) I abstain (not vote)
 


> 
> 
> ---------------------------------
> Step 4: Audit the Selected Sample
> ----
> 
> 
> 

 * ( ) accept this section
 * ( ) accept this section with the following suggestions
 * ( ) I do not accept this section for the following reasons
 * ( ) I abstain (not vote)
 


> 
> 
> ---------------------------------
> Step 5: Report the Evaluation Findings
> ----
> 
> 
> 

 * ( ) accept this section
 * ( ) accept this section with the following suggestions
 * ( ) I do not accept this section for the following reasons
 * ( ) I abstain (not vote)
 


> 
> 
> ---------------------------------
> Remaing Comments
> ----
> Provide any remaining comments that you may have.
> 
> 
Comments: 


> 
> These answers were last modified on 24 June 2014 at 21:47:07 U.T.C.
> by David MacDonald
> 
Answers to this questionnaire can be set and changed at
https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/1/WCAG-EM-20140623/ until 2014-06-30.

 Regards,

 The Automatic WBS Mailer
Received on Tuesday, 24 June 2014 21:48:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:41:55 UTC