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 04:45:01 +0000
To: public-wcag-em-comments@w3.org,shadi@w3.org,e.velleman@accessibility.nl
Message-Id: <wbs-bdf6343fb7a7c3a7fad9d649accb88c3@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)
 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

Spelling
Constistent

Spelling 3e
Nethods

Representative Sample Step 3

There are no example baselines of the number of pages to sample. No
ballpark and this could result in much variation across evaluators and
jurisdictions. I think there are two ways to improve this and provide
better guidance that will allow more consistent results across
jurisdictions.
1) use the “size of website” criteria as baseline and provide a
statistically relevant sample recommendations, such as those used by the
Canadian Government in response to the Donna Jodhan Case. 
Size of the website — websites with more web pages typcially require a
larger sample to evaluate <add> (for example a statistically relevant size
with a the following sample sizes would give a 90% confidence level, +/-
10% error: 
If the website has web pages numbering:
≤60, then a sample of 32
<100 then a sample size of 47
<200 then a sample size of 56
<500 then a sample size of 60
<1000 then a sample size of 64
<5000 then a sample size of 67
>5000 then a sample size of 68

These are established international statistical sample sizes. Then with
that baseline we can talk about increasing (or decreasing) the sample size
based on the other factors of complexity, age, consistency etc...

===
I think we should have an added section in the different types samples 
3f templates. Choose a page using each type of template.

There is some implicit mention early on about templates but they seem drop
off in this important section where I think they should be included
explicitly.



---------------------------------
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.

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

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

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 for
people with disabilities. It can result in a more rounded and useful
assessment, and therefore better usability and overall accessibility of the
site."

===
<snip> Note:... In such cases, an evaluator may use an identifier such as
"not applicable" to denote the particular situations where Success Criteria
are satisfied because no matching content is presented.</snip> 
 
We may want to check with Gregg about this, I think he felt pretty strongly
about not having “N/A” on conformance claims, although I don’t
personally have particular issue about it. I think we should listen to his
rational.



---------------------------------
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 claim absolute WCAG conformance based on
this methodology, as this phrase appears to indicate. At least not as it is
defined currently in WCAG which requires EVERY page to conform.  I think it
might expose them to legal action.
I think it should be reported like statistics are reported. 
"We report Conformance Level (Level A, AA, AAA) with a fair degree of
confidence, based on the WCAG Evaluation Methodology Framework" with a link
to the this document.
The report should also include another bullet.
-Contact information to report any accessibility issues on pages that may
not have been evaluated.

=====
Grammar
Currently <add>comma</add> the following performance scoring approaches are
provided by this methodology:


These answers were last modified on 7 December 2013 at 04:44:55 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 04:45:11 UTC

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