Fwd: RE: WCAG-EM Website Accessibility Conformance Evaluation Methodology Draft Published

Forwarding to the publicly archived mailing list with permission.


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: WCAG-EM Website Accessibility Conformance Evaluation 
Methodology Draft Published
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 14:59:36 +0000
From: <Francois.Junique@ec.europa.eu>

Goods news!
I am not intending to do an in-depth commenting as I will leave it to 
M376 people and competent people. Nevertheless I have still some points 
I saw from a quick reading - that I would like highlighting (from my old 
UWEM driving ;-)

KR
François

- 1.1/size-independence and 2.1: tricky for a very large portal, 
modularity/truncatibility should be better supported, and aggregation of 
split scores should be explained (or to present it differently, scores - 
in 5c - should be defined in such way to be aggregatable according to a 
defined computation recipe)
- 1.4 "web-site-part" unclear
- 2.3/Note: more should be investigated in particular in relation to 2nd 
option in 3 step 1.b
- 2.5: should be clearer if the intention is to very website 
accessibility or conformance to WCAG2.0
- 3 step 1.b is very good (although the 3 options titles are questionable)
- 3 step 1.d is very interesting on technology supporting UA but little 
is supporting this further yet (4c)
- 3 step 1.d: the implicit/interpretable-from-reading concept of 
for-specific-disability might be dangerous
- 3 step 1.e: both essential for agile adaptation to technology 
evolution and rather tricky as the techniques are said to unstable 
non-standardisable docs, nevertheless not all that clear regarding how 
to handle the passing and failing ones (plus the many "other advices" 
type ones) (4b)
- 3 steps 2 and 3: not so clear how relevant for each of the 3 options 
in 3 step 1.b
- 3 step 4 use-case: what is this: disability-specific (see my 2nd point 
on 1.d above) ?
- 3 step 5b: the term "accessibility statement" seems to often used for 
some thing wide than a declaration of conformity and more for user 
information
- 3 step 5b&c: as I suggested in last WAI-ACT WS, it might be beneficial 
to a richer than a "one-figure" score, e.g. for each technology used a 
matrix of wcag2.0-principles versus use-case scoring
- 3 step 5b&c: where will be defined for 1st option of 3 step 1.b, what 
are the tolerable number of errors to still conform...
- 3 step 5c: one special one should be available when only automatic 
measurements have been possible
- 3 step 5f: that sound to be for the details only where a metadata 
summary format (e.g. of the detailed scores) could also be wishable
- 4: what is this? If we were to have one day a EU legislation of 
web-accessibility based on the usual EU "new approach" on regulation, we 
would have some mandatory essential requirements and a presumption of 
conformity would be achieved by conforming with the M376-created 
standard using  this WCAG-EM (if part of it...). Already the reliance 
for testing this conforming on agilely evolving techniques docs is 
tricky but if in addition the WCAG-EM is only one option for checking 
the conforming to the std (not talking about conforming to the essential 
requirements), this would be even more opening fuzziness ;-)
- 5: seems to contradict some of the options in 3 step 1.b
- + (in general): I don’t see where you plan to discuss 
handling/evaluating the different versions of a web site (based on 
different available style-sheets or dynamically generated content (UA or 
server side - non only js based) based on user profile/preference or 
device type or natural-language.
- + (in general): time plan to complement the missing bits (in 
particular sections 4 & 5)?

Received on Monday, 2 April 2012 06:53:48 UTC