W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wcag-em-comments@w3.org > December 2013

[wbs] response to 'Approval for draft publication of WCAG-EM'

From: WBS Mailer on behalf of David100@sympatico.ca <webmaster@w3.org>
Date: Sat, 07 Dec 2013 03:03:02 +0000
To: public-wcag-em-comments@w3.org,shadi@w3.org,e.velleman@accessibility.nl
Message-Id: <wbs-938a58ffae840637223b0c9588eed201@cgi.w3.org>
The following answers have been successfully submitted to 'Approval for
draft publication of WCAG-EM' (public) for David MacDonald.


---------------------------------
Abstract
----



 * ( ) accept this section as draft
 * (x) accept this section as draft with the following suggestions
 * ( ) I do not accept this section as draft
 * ( ) I abstain (not vote)
 self-assessment and third-party evaluation

"self -assessment" seems like a one man organization... how about "internal
self-assessment"


---------------------------------
Introduction
----



 * ( ) accept this section as draft
 * (x) accept this section as draft with the following suggestions
 * ( ) I do not accept this section as draft
 * ( ) I abstain (not vote)
 "It also defines how optional conformance claims can be made to cover
individual web pages, <add>a</add>series of web pages such as a multi-page
form, and multiple related web pages such as a website."


    Easy Checks - A First Review of Web Accessibility
<add>Involving web accessibility experts</add>
    Involving Users in Web Accessibility Evaluation
    Selecting Web Accessibility Evaluation Tools
    Using Combined Expertise to Evaluate Web Accessibility



---------------------------------
Using This Methodology
----



 * ( ) accept this section as draft
 * ( ) accept this section as draft with the following suggestions
 * ( ) I do not accept this section as draft
 * ( ) I abstain (not vote)
 


---------------------------------
Scope of Applicability
----



 * ( ) accept this section as draft
 * ( ) accept this section as draft with the following suggestions
 * ( ) I do not accept this section as draft
 * ( ) I abstain (not vote)
 


---------------------------------
Step 1: Define the Evaluation Scope
----



 * ( ) accept this section as draft
 * ( ) accept this section as draft with the following suggestions
 * ( ) I do not accept this section as draft
 * ( ) I abstain (not vote)
 


---------------------------------
Step 2: Explore the Target Website
----



 * ( ) accept this section as draft
 * ( ) accept this section as draft with the following suggestions
 * ( ) I do not accept this section as draft
 * ( ) I abstain (not vote)
 


---------------------------------
Step 3: Select a Representative Sample
----



 * ( ) accept this section as draft
 * (x) accept this section as draft with the following suggestions
 * ( ) I do not accept this section as draft
 * ( ) I abstain (not vote)
 typo
distinctinstance 

Typo
and other creative nethods 

=====
I think we should provide several examples of sample sizes...  I don't see
baseline guidance about how many pages might be selected in each of these
categories:
Size, age, complexity, consistency etc...

I know it is touch to gauge but I think we can put our heads together and
come up with some examples... for instance we could start with the web site
size using a baseline of the statistics Canada relevancy figures used by
the Canadian Government in meeting their obligations for the courts in the
Jodhan lawsuit ... 90 confidence 10% margin of error. If web site is:

less than 60 pages, then choose a 32 page sample size
less than 100= 41
less than 200=  51 
less than 1000= 64
less than 5000= 67
Greater than 5000=68

These are well established statistical sample sizes and could be used for
the "size" baseline, and then we can explain that the sample would increase
based if it is older than 3 years,(age), complexity, consistency etc...
(I have the figures for 95% confidence, and 5% margin or error also)





---------------------------------
Step 4: Audit the Selected Sample
----



 * ( ) accept this section as draft
 * ( ) accept this section as draft with the following suggestions
 * (x) I do not accept this section as draft
 * ( ) I abstain (not vote)
 I think there is some ambiguity between baseline WCAG conformance and good
usability/ best practices ... I know this sounds terrible, but some
organizations want to just technically pass WCAG and don't care about
accessibility... 

Although I almost always include people with disabilities in my
evaluations, and they often identify things that can be improved on a web
site's accessibility/usability, I rarely experience users identifying
strict WCAG failures that were not found in the "expert review". I think
this sentence could be improved to correct the ambiguity.

"Involving people with disabilities and people with aging-related
impairments helps identify additional accessibility barriers that are not
easily discovered by the evaluators alone."

Let's leave evaluators out of this sentence... How about...

"Involving people with disabilities and people with aging-related
impairments helps provide a clearer  picture of how the site actually works
for people with disabilities. This can result in a more rounded and
thorough overall evaluation, and therefore better overall usability and
accessibility for the site."

==========================




---------------------------------
Step 5: Record the Evaluation Findings
----



 * ( ) accept this section as draft
 * ( ) accept this section as draft with the following suggestions
 * ( ) I do not accept this section as draft
 * ( ) I abstain (not vote)
 

These answers were last modified on 7 December 2013 at 03:01:34 U.T.C.
by David MacDonald

Answers to this questionnaire can be set and changed at
https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/1/WCAG-EM-20131129/ until 2013-12-17.

 Regards,

 The Automatic WBS Mailer
Received on Saturday, 7 December 2013 03:03:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:55:24 UTC