Re: Discussion about exclusions

Hi Tim,

I don't think we need a definition but rather a good description. We 
currently have a listing of "target audience" for the document. We 
discussed rewriting this in terms of "target purposes" instead.

Best,
   Shadi


On 5.12.2012 13:24, Boland Jr, Frederick E. wrote:
> we would seem to need a firm definition of "-primary- use case" then (this - particularly -primary- seems somewhat subjective and context-dependent at first thought, but I wasn't present at f2f discussion..)
>
> Thanks and best wishes
> Tim Boland NIST
>
> ________________________________________
> From: Velleman, Eric [evelleman@bartimeus.nl]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2012 6:39 AM
> To: public-wai-evaltf@w3.org
> Subject: Discussion about exclusions
>
> Dear all,
>
> In the last survey [1], many commenters proposed to add the possibility of exclusions to section 2.1 Scope of Applicability [2]. At the moment, there is no room for exclusions besides what is described in the current version of the Methodology.
>
> WCAG2.0 already offers the possibility for evaluators to use the concept of partial conformance to indicate that a website would be ok if a certain part would be excluded. But the commenters are proposing to not look at excluded parts at all.
>
> A possible solution to that could be what we discussed during the Technical Plenary at Lyon and input into the survey by Shadi: "At the face-to-face we discussed an idea to describe the primary use cases of the methodology rather than the target audiences -- this allows people to reuse the methodology for many more situations without actually broadening the scope of the document."
>
> Would this be a good approach to follow up on further?
> Kindest regards,
>
> Eric Velleman
>
> [1] https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/48225/evaltfq5/results#x2650
> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-EM/#applicability
>
>

-- 
Shadi Abou-Zahra - http://www.w3.org/People/shadi/
Activity Lead, W3C/WAI International Program Office
Evaluation and Repair Tools Working Group (ERT WG)
Research and Development Working Group (RDWG)

Received on Wednesday, 5 December 2012 13:01:38 UTC