AW: Review of new version methodology

Hi Eric, all,

I hadn't enough time. I also like the direction, but I have to points (as
also written in the webform of the WG):

1. "Requirement 1.e Requirement 1.e: The WCAG 2.0 techniques to be used
during the evaluation should be specified" and "Step 4.b: Apply Documented
WCAG 2.0 Techniques". As written in WCAG 2.0: "no techniques are required
for conformance". Even if optional in WACEM people might think that they
have to use techniques. The question is also if testing techniques is valid
against what is written in the WCAG2 itself.

There are a lot of misunderstandings about the character of techniques. We
should make a clear statement about that instead of proposing use of
techniques during evaluation processes.

2. Missing explicit statement about the main goodness criteria for
evaluations: Objectivity, Reliability, Validity

And very minor I propose to write the name of the participants like this:
pre name, name. This would be more nice.



> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Velleman, Eric []
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 7. März 2012 23:55
> An:
> Betreff: Review of new version methodology
> Dear Taskforce,
> As you see a lot of changes have been made to the new version of the
> document.
> Please review sections 2.1 and section 3:
> <>
> Please share with us your opinion on the following points to start
> with:
> 1. Your general impression of this version
> 2. Name change to: Web Accessibility Conformance Evaluation
> Methodology.
> 3. Is the scope of applicability well covered?
> 4. Are the steps in section 3 a good approach. Do we need more steps,
> more detail...
> Hope to speak to you all on the call.
> Kindest regards,
> Eric

Received on Thursday, 8 March 2012 14:49:43 UTC