RE: Comments on January 30, 2014 working draft

Hello Moe and Mary Jo,

Many thanks for the feedback that you have provided on WCAG-EM. In the coming period we will discuss all comments in the Evaluation Taskforce. The outcome of the discussions will be visible in a Disposition of Comments where we will address the comments and propose solutions supported by a rationale. We plan to start working on the comments in our next Telco.

Kindest regards,

Eric

________________________________
Van: Moe Kraft [maureen_kraft@us.ibm.com]
Verzonden: zaterdag 1 maart 2014 19:01
Aan: public-wai-evaltf@w3.org
Onderwerp: Comments on January 30, 2014 working draft


Hi Team,

Hope this is not too late. Some comments from Mary Jo and me. Hoping these tables and links come through HTML okay. They are aligned with the disposition of comments tables we've been using.

Have a great weekend!
Moe

Mary Jo's comments:
Location        Current Text    Suggested Text  Rationale
Introduction<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-EM/#introduction>        First paragraph, the sentence says ‘…and the technologies used to create it (e.g. HTML, PDF, etc.)…’    I would rather see something like JavaScript or CSS there.      PDF is not a technology used to create a website; it is content that could be contained on a website.
Purposes for this Methodology:<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-EM/#purpose>   Fifth bullet says ‘Web accessibility monitoring activities who want to benchmark…’      Grammar needs to be changed ‘activities’ aren’t a ‘who’. Suggest saying ‘activities used to benchmark ’.        Grammatical
Relation to WCAG 2.0 Conformance Claims:<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-EM/#context> 2nd paragraph, replace ‘into’ with ‘in’, ‘using this methodology alone does not result into WCAG’       ‘using this methodology alone does not result in WCAG...”       Grammatical
Terms and Definitions:<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-EM/#terms>     • Definition for common web pages says: ‘Common web pages may also be web page states in web applications.’     It would be useful if the ‘web page states’ linked to the definition that comes later in the list.
Terms and Definitions:  Essential functionality definition first note says: ‘Note: Examples of functionality’.   Should it be ‘Note: Examples of essential functionality’?  On the same note should ‘filling and submitting’ be ‘filling in and submitting’ or instead ‘completing and submitting’?
Terms and Definitions:  Evaluation commissioner definition:     Should ‘monitoring survey’ be ‘monitoring survey owner’?        Seems that a monitoring survey is not a person equivalent to a ‘commissioner’.
Terms and Definitions:  Web page states note:   Suggest changing ‘depending on users input’ to ‘depending on the user’s input’. Syntactical
Required expertise: <http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-EM/#expertise>   Minor edit - Suggest changing ‘This includes understanding of relevant web…’     to be ‘This includes an understanding of relevant web…’ or ‘This includes understanding relevant web…’ Minor
Required expertise:     Another minor edit since this sentence is so long and contains three ‘and’s – Suggest changing ‘…people with disabilities use, and evaluation techniques, tools, and…’  to …people with disabilities use, as well as evaluation techniques, tools, and…’        Minor
Required expertise:     Last sentence, suggest editing ‘…listed in section Background Reading<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-EM/>.’  to say ‘…listed in the section Background Reading<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-EM/>.’      Grammatical
Scope of applicability:<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-EM/#applicability>    Examples of websites last paragraph – add ‘of’ to ‘…regardless whether or not…’         so it reads ‘…regardless of whether or not…’    Grammatical
Particular types of websites: <http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-EM/#specialcases>      Suggest simplifying the section title to ‘Types of websites’            Editorial
Particular types of websites:   Website using responsive design is missing its content.         Needs replacement before publishing this as a note.     Editorial
Particular Evaluation Contexts:<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-EM/#considerations>   Suggest simplifying the section title to ‘Evaluation contexts’          Editorial
Particular Evaluation Contexts  Evaluating composite websites - Suggest changing ‘When evaluating websites that are composed of separable areas<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-EM/>,’        to be ‘When evaluating websites with separable areas<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-EM/>,’ so the link text matches the definition.  Editorial
Particular Evaluation Contexts  Evaluating third party content – There are two statements saying ‘When such content is regularly monitored and repaired (within two business days)…,’  and ‘Otherwise the non-conforming content needs to be clearly identified in the web pages in which it appears.’  This section is about evaluation considerations for this type of content, not how to apply conformance statements which is already clearly covered by WCAG.   If the last sentence is kept, the wording ‘needs to be’ should really be ‘may be’ which matches the WCAG wording.   Suggest instead coming up with some verbiage about the evaluation being more difficult for third party content similar to the verbiage under 3rd party evaluation – since this is 3rd party created content, the evaluator will have little information about the third party content was developed which makes it more difficult to evaluate. You could make suggestions on how often evaluation of third party content should be made.      Keep in line with WCAG wording.
Particular Evaluation Contexts  Evaluating third party content – Do you consider links on a web page that link to third party content to be in scope for the evaluation, or is it just embedded content that was created by a third party?              Question
Evaluation Procedure:<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-EM/#procedure>  First paragraph says: ‘Some of the activities overlap’.         Should that say ‘Some of the activities can overlap’?
Step 1.d:<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-EM/#step1d> Third sentence says: ‘However, it is not necessary to use these particular techniques…’  Suggest replacing ‘necessary’ with ‘required’ so the phrase reads: ‘However, it is not required to use these particular techniques…’
Step 1.d:<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-EM/#step1d> ‘inline’        Should be ‘in line’
Step 1.d:<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-EM/#step1d> 2nd paragraph, first sentence   reads easier if stated like this: ‘During this step, particular evaluation methods are defined, if any are to be used.”
Step 2.b:<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-EM/#step2b> Examples: minor edits.  First bullet should say ‘…from the web shop;’ and the second bullet should say ‘Completing and submitting…”
Step 2.c:<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-EM/#step2c> Minor edit to 2nd sentence: ‘They are also often…’       should read ‘They are often…’
Step 2.c:<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-EM/#step2c> 2nd paragraph, minor edit: rather than ‘…type of web page’      ‘…types of web pages…’  since the adjective is plural, the noun should be plural.
Step 2.c:<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-EM/#step2c> All bullets starting with "Content with..."     Suggestion for the bullets is to start each bullet with ‘Web pages…’ rather than ‘Content…’     because there are several instances of ‘Content with …content’ which is a little harder to understand.
Step 2.c:<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-EM/#step2c> • 2nd bullet:   Suggest splitting this bullet to two bullets, one talking about structural elements such as forms, tables, lists and headings. Scripting is already covered in the 4th bullet. The second bullet should cover things like embedded content such as multimedia and embedded documents (.pdf, etc.).
Step 2.c:<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-EM/#step2c> Bullets 6, 7, and 8 minor edit: In US English ‘content’ is a singular word, so you should use ‘is’ rather than ‘are’    so they read ‘Content that is authored…’ or ‘Content that is created…’  Grammatical
Step 2.c:<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-EM/#step2c> Next to last bullet minor edit: instead of ‘Content that change appearance’     ‘Content that changes the appearance…’  Grammatical
Step 2.c:<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-EM/#step2c> Last bullet minor edit: ‘Content with dynamic content…’         should read ‘web        Editorial
Step 2.c:<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-EM/#step2c> None of the bulleted examples cover what kinds of web page states the evaluator should look for.                Comment
Step 2.d:<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-EM/#step2d> Minor edit in the Note: ‘jQuery’ has a lowercase j.             Minor, typo
Step 2.e:<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-EM/#step2e> Methodology requirement number says ‘3.c’ but this is the ‘2.e’ requirement.            Typo
Step 2.e:<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-EM/#step2e> Methodology requirement minor edit: Missing ‘the’ in ‘…and to accessibility of the website.’     It should read ‘…and to the accessibility of the website.’ Same comment in the next sentence outside of the blue box.  Grammatical
Step 2.e:<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-EM/#step2e> First bullet minor edit: ‘…explaining accessibility features of the websites’   should read ‘…explaining the accessibility features of the website’ (singular ‘website’, add ‘the’)     Grammatical
Step 3<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-EM/#step3>     Website development process – this set of 4 bullets doesn’t address that design also plays a factor in the adherence to accessibility conformance. Instead the bullets focus on development & test.     Should address that design also plays a factor in the adherence to accessibility conformance.   Comment
Step 3.d<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-EM/#step3d>  Methodology blue box statement: ‘into’ should be ‘in’    to read ‘Include all web pages and web page states…  …in the selected sample.’
Step 3.d<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-EM/#step3d>  Suggest 1st sentence after blue box state:       ‘…that belong to a series <of actions used as part of> <del>presenting</del>  a complete process…’ for clarity.
Step 3.d<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-EM/#step3d>  For clarity, Suggest 2nd sentence after blue box state:  ‘…part of a process <del>without</del> <add>, unless</add> all other web pages and web page states that are part of that process <del>to be</del> <add>are</add> included <del>into</del> <add>in</add> the selected sample.’
Step 3.d<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-EM/#step3d>  Next sentence before the numbered list suggest changing ‘into’ to ‘in’. to read ‘in the sample’
Step 3.d<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-EM/#step3d>  Number 1 bullet suggest removing ‘and’ in ‘…and that is part of…’       to ‘…that is part of…’
Step 3.d<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-EM/#step3d>  I was confused by the word ‘replace’ because does this mean one web page was in there and you are replacing it with another?    If not, suggest changing ‘process and replace them’ to read ‘process and include them'
Step 3.d<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-EM/#step3d>  Number 2 bullet first sentence:         change ‘into’ to ‘to’.
Step 3.d<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-EM/#step3d>  Number 3 bullet note’s example:         add ‘the’ to read ‘…without changing the contents of the shopping cart…’
Step 3.d<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-EM/#step3d>  Number 4 bullet 2nd sentence:   Change ‘into’ to ‘to’.
Step 3.e<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-EM/#step3e>  2nd to last word in the first paragraph after the methodology box:      Fix spelling of ‘approaches’.   Typo
Step 4.a<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-EM/#step4a>  3rd bullet: How would you check that all features are supported by the web browser?             Question
Step 4.b<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-EM/#step4b>  Methodology statement suggested edit: Use ‘used in ‘ instead of ‘along’         to read ‘…web page state used in a complete process…’
Step 4.d<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-EM/#step4d>  Methodology statement suggested edit: add ‘for’ to the last phrase in the sentence      to read ‘…requirement for non-interference.’ Same comment for first sentence of the next paragraph.
Step 4.e<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-EM/#step4e>  Not sure it is reasonable to expect every single random sample not have any unique content types or outcomes that isn’t contained in the representative sample.  In a large website, it would be difficult to check each and every page to find out if there is unique content or outcomes; meaning there is no way to tell if your structured sample contains absolutely every unique content type.    It just seems that you should just go ahead and evaluate the random sample for what it is…something random that you check that might have captured some unique kinds of content.  It’s a good thing.  We aren’t trying to claim conformance where every bit of the content on a website is tested, we’re just sampling to the best of our ability.      Comment
Step 5<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-EM/#step5>     Recommend the title use ‘Document’ rather than ‘Record’ and the use of ‘recording’ and ‘recordings’ be changed to ‘document’ and ‘documentation’ to match terminology used in subsequent sections.              Editorial
Step 5.b<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-EM/#step5b>  4th bullet minor edit:  Suggest changing ‘arrive to’ to ‘navigate to’ and ‘useids’ to ‘userids’.        Grammar/Typo
Step 5.c<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-EM/#step5c>  Edit the reminder: change ‘into’ to ‘in’        to read ‘…does not result in WCAG2.0 conformance…’ Also, shouldn’t ‘websites’ be ‘website’ in the same statement?       Grammatical
Step 5.c<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-EM/#step5c>  Paragraph under reminder:        Fix spelling of ‘validity’ from misspelled ‘validty’   Typo
Step 5.c<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-EM/#step5c>  Sentence before number 7 bullet: Says ‘have to also’,    so is this really a ‘must’ or a ‘should’. Prefer that type of WCAG language.   Use WCAG wording.
Step 5.d<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-EM/#step5d>  Numbered bullet 4 should only be marked ‘not present’ if no web pages in the entire sample have content that applies to that success criteria.  (e.g. multimedia success criteria is evaluated, but no web pages in the sample contain multimedia content.)      I think it is clearer to state it that way.
Step 5.d<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-EM/#step5d>  Paragraph after numbered bullets: Add ‘is’ to ‘This particular score is sensitive…’     ‘This particular score is sensitive…’   Grammatical
Step 5.d<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-EM/#step5d>  Aggregated score, last sentence: Correct spelling of ‘failure’ from ‘failire’.  Correct spelling of ‘failure’ from ‘failire’.   Typo
Contributors section:<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-EM/#contributors>       Change ‘Mary-Jo’         to ‘Mary Jo’ – use a space instead of the hyphen.      Typo

Moe's comments:
Location        Current Text    Suggested Text  Rationale
Introduction<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-EM/#introduction>        Evaluating the extent to which a website conforms...    Add a link to website definition in Terms and Definitions: http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-EM/#website        I don't find a link to the definition until Scope of Applicability. I think it would be helpful to link to the definition at first mention.
Introduction, 1st paragraph     The activities carried out within these steps are influenced by many aspects such as the type of website (e.g. static, dynamic, responsive, mobile, etc.), its size, complexity, and the technologies used to create it (e.g. HTML, PDF, etc.),         Replace the last "it" with "the website"        Just a picky editorial comment. "It" is a little bit far from the last "website" so it takes the brain a little work to relate.
Introduction, 2nd paragraph     It supports common approaches and understanding for evaluating the extent of conformance of websites to WCAG 2.0, though in the majority of use cases it does not directly result in conformance claims.        Maybe add "This methodology" one more time. This methodology supports common approaches and understanding ...   Editorial
Principles of Website Enclosure<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-EM/#enclosure>        See also the definition for Common Web Pages.   Provide a link to Common Web Pages. http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-EM/#common        Missing link
Step 2: Explore the Target Website<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-EM/#step2> Under first Note, it would be good to refer to Easy Checks again.       http://www.w3.org/WAI/eval/preliminary  Informational
Step 2.d: Identify Web Technologies Relied Upon<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-EM/#step2d>   Add WAI acronym to the Title for WAI-ARIA
Add Title for PDF       - Web Accessibility Initiative
- Portable Document Format      Editorial
Steps 4 a <http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-EM/#step4a> & 4b<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-EM/#step4b>     4a: For each web page and web page state in the sample selected in Step 3: Select a Representative Sample<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-EM/#step3> that is not within or the end of a complete process, check its conformance with each WCAG 2.0 Success Criterion within the target conformance level set ...

4b: For each complete process selected in Step 3.d: Include Complete Processes in the Sample<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-EM/#step3d>, follow the identified default and branch sequences of web pages and web page states, and evaluate each according to Step 4.a: Check WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-EM/#step4a>.        Something is bugging the programmer in me. In 4a, we say to skip pages that are parts of complete processes and in 4b for pages in complete processes we send you back to 4a.

Maybe instead of saying "that is not within or the end of a complete process", we have a statement to the effect that "for web pages that are part of complete processes, see Step 4b to identify default and branch sequences of web pages and web page states..."     Trying to avoid contradicting guidance as well as an infinite loop.
Step 4e<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-EM/#step4e>   Methodology Requirement 4.e: Check that each web page and web page state in the randomly selected sample does not show types of content and outcomes that are not represented in the structured sample.         Methodology Requirement 4.e: Check that each web page and each web page state in the randomly selected sample do not show types of content and outcomes that are not represented in the structured sample.      Grammatical.


________________________________


[cid:3__=0ABBF61DDFDDF0588f9e8a9@notesdev.ibm.com]<http://www.ibm.com/able>


Maureen Kraft
Accessibility Consultant Test Lead
Human Ability and Accessibility Center
IBM Research

Tel: 978-899-3114
E-mail: maureen_kraft@us.ibm.com





[cid:4__=0ABBF61DDFDDF0588f9e8a9@notesdev.ibm.com]




<http://www.linkedin.com/e/vgh/2419815/eml-grp-sub/>


<http://www.facebook.com/IBMAccessibility>


<http://twitter.com/IBMAccess>