W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wcag-em-comments@w3.org > April 2012

Fwd: comments on WCAG-EM

From: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 23:38:17 +0200
Message-ID: <4F99C049.2080506@w3.org>
To: public-wcag-em-comments@w3.org
CC: Aurélien Levy <aurelien.levy@free.fr>
Forwarding to correct list for archival.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: comments on WCAG-EM
Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 16:28:04 +0000
Resent-From: public-wai-evaltf@w3.org
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 18:27:32 +0200
From: Aurélien Levy <aurelien.levy@temesis.com>
To: Eval TF <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>


on the 2.1 section : the definition of the scope exclude the ability to
remove part of a website.
Why aren't you considering the same exception as in the WCAG 2.0 for
partial conformance :

on 3 step1 section : some time defining the scope with the evaluation
commissioner can be not as good as this section suggest it because most
of the time he doesn't know anything about accessibility and about what
is important for user to be evaluated. Furthermore, he can also include
in the scope some specific pages where the development team has
concentrated his effort to improve accessibility

on 3 step 1b section : the detailed review and in-depth analysis spoke
about "errors" is it success criteria errors or specific dom node errors
? Maybe we need a definition here. In case it's dom node errors I don't
think it's useful to have information about every identified errors
including counting the number of errors and their locations within the
web pages specially if the error is a repeatable one. For example, if
different img without alt attribute are used for 10 different news on
the same part of a page, I think giving just on example of this kind of
error is enough)

on 3 step 1c section : I agree that making an AAA evaluation can be
useful but the reporting must be adapted to give conformance for each
WCAG Level. Maybe we can add something on that here or in the reporting
section. Furthermore using a AAA target will tend to decrease the
conformity score and discourage the commissioner (or his development team)

on 3 step 2a section : I'm a bit concerned by the use of the "template"
word I think we need a definition for that. Is it the CMS template
without any content ?  If it's corresponding to CMS template, for some
time the commissioner can't have access to this kind of information
(proprietary CMS, CMS without template mechanism). Maybe this step need
to be optional

on 3 step 2b section : In this section I think we need to do it with the
help of the commissioner

on 3 step3 section : maybe we need to consider website composed by an
unique webpage (where part of the page is updated with ajax somewhere
(example : http://www.arteradio.com/)

on 3 step3b section : as this section is defining a minimum number of
pages per features we can give a minimum number of pages to include in
the requirement 3 text. Furthermore, I'm not really sure that taking two
pages with the same kind of content (page with data table for example)
if those pages are generated with the same template


Aurélien Levy
Received on Thursday, 26 April 2012 21:38:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:55:22 UTC