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

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)
 Typo in TOC
Procceses

=======

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 


---------------------------------
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

"Involving people with disabilities and people with aging-related
impairments provides a clearer picture of how the site actually works with
people with disabilities, and can help identify barriers, thereby providing
a more thorough overall evaluation."



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



 * ( ) 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)
 Conformance level satisfied: Level A, AA or AAA as per Step 1.b. Define
the Conformance Target;

I don't think an organization can report WCAG conformance based on this
methodology. At least not as it is defined currently in WCAG.
I think it should be reported like statistics are reported. 
"with a fair degree of confidence, based on the WCAG evaluation methodology
note" with a link to the note...

These answers were last modified on 7 December 2013 at 04:38:09 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 04:39:04 UTC