Re: Comment WCAG-EM draft

Hi everyone,

Sorry I have not been active lately on the list. As some of you may know, I
left Oracle toward the end of December last year, and I am now working at a
company called Workday, which was started by the former PeopleSoft founders.

Since I'm now working in a company that is not a W3C member and working in
more of a fast-paced start-up environment, I have not yet been able to
resolve my participation in the task force. I am glad that Don Raikes is
participating on the task force from Oracle.

Attached are my comments on the latest draft. In general, I think the draft
needs to take into account more actual examples in the language and refer
back to WCAG on conformance claims.
http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#conformance-claims

Thanks,
Amy


2012/3/14 <kvotis@iti.gr>

> Dear Shadi, all
>
> i would like give my vote for the acceptance of this draft. However, from
> my point of view please find below some comments:
>
>  - in section 1.2 target audience: Web accessbility consultants and
> evaluation services i think it would be better the evaluation service
> providers" because in this text we want to define the audience. Also the
> same for the monitoring and benchmarking activities it could be
> "organisations involved in Web accessibility.....activities. For the
> text: Policy makers, project managers, and other decision makers who need
> a standard i would propose the: Policy makers, project managers, and
> other decision makers who need a standardized way for performing
> accessbility evaluations
>
> - section 1.3 - Evaluating Websites for Accessibility - A multi-page
> resource suite that outlines different approaches for evaluating websites
> for accessibility : I am note sure about the definition for the
> text:Evaluating Websites for Accessibility---Is this a multi-page resource
> suite?
> - Section 1.4: become some of the terms are also used before the section
> 1.4 i would propose to be included in beginning of the methodology
> - section 2.2: make linkage of this text with section 1.3
> - section 2.3 text automatically check: i would propose to include also
> semi-automatically check
>
> -requirement 1.b: the large scale evaluations as described in the basic
> conformance it could be also included to detailed review and in depth
> analysis. Also, in the detailed review you are talking about Web pages. I
> suggest to put Web sites or applications
>
> -requirement 1.d: i am little bit confused with the described requirement.
> Why do we need to define who uses the Website?I am not sure if we need it
> - step 1.e: I am not so sure about this step..This could be modified for
> including also techniques that can be assessed automatically and
> techniques that could be tested by a manual way
> - Regarding the selection of a representative template i ahve the
> following comment:What about Websites that are being developed through
> templates and these templates are the same for the most of the pages for
> these Websites?
>
> - As a general comment: i think that as a next step we have to create some
> templates and some examples for providing a clearer understanding to the
> evaluator who has no experience
>
> regards
>
> kostas
>
>
>
>
> > Hi Shadi, all,
> >
> > I voted already in the survey. In our last telco we discussed the
> > techniques-issue. We've discussed this issue already in this list, so I
> > just
> > want to post the following from WCAG2 and a proposal for 1e:
> >
> > "Note: that all techniques are informative"
> > (http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/intro.html) and the definition of
> > "informative" in the glossary of WCAG2: "for information purposes and not
> > required for conformance"
> > (http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-WCAG20-20081211/#informativedef).
> >
> > I propose to move Step 1e: Define the Techniques to be Used (Optional)
> and
> > the text belonging to this point into somewhere in the Report Section.
> > Guided with an explicit statement, that techniques are not the
> > checkpoints.
> > Reason: I fear that the current version will lead to confusion about the
> > character of techniques, especially when they are combined with
> > "Requirement" (even when it is optional).
> >
> > As already posted in the survey: I'm missing a statement upon goodness
> > criteria. But I think in the moment the document is a first draft, but we
> > shouldn't leave these issues behind.
> >
> > Will there be another survey, before publishing the document?
> >
> > Best
> >
> > Kerstin
> >
> >
> > -------------------------------------
> > Kerstin Probiesch - Freie Beraterin
> > Barrierefreiheit, Social Media, Webkompetenz
> > Kantstra?e 10/19 | 35039 Marburg
> > Tel.: 06421 167002
> > E-Mail: mail@barrierefreie-informationskultur.de
> > Web: http://www.barrierefreie-informationskultur.de
> >
> > XING: http://www.xing.com/profile/Kerstin_Probiesch
> > Twitter: http://twitter.com/kprobiesch
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht-----
> >> Von: Shadi Abou-Zahra [mailto:shadi@w3.org]
> >> Gesendet: Montag, 12. M?rz 2012 16:14
> >> An: Eval TF
> >> Betreff: Minutes for Teleconference on 8 March 2012
> >>
> >> Eval TF,
> >>
> >> Please find the minutes for the teleconference on 8 March 2012:
> >>   - <http://www.w3.org/2012/03/08-eval-minutes.html>
> >>
> >> Next meeting: Thursday 15 March 2012.
> >>
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>    Shadi
> >>
> >> --
> >> 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)
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> -------------------
> Dr. Konstantinos Votis
> Computer Engineer & Informatics,PhD, Msc, MBA
> Research Associate
> Informatics and Telematics Institute
> Centre for Research and Technology Hellas
> 6th Klm. Charilaou - Thermi Road
> P.O. BOX 60361 GR - 570 01
> Thessaloniki &#8211; Greece
> Tel.: +30-2311-257722
> Fax : +30-2310-474128
> E-mail : kvotis@iti.gr
>
>
>
>
>