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

PS... please disregard this posting because I provided a better version later... in email format... I had quite a bit of trouble with the form tonight for some reason... it did not register all my answers... appears to be OK now in the survey...

Cheers,
David MacDonald

CanAdapt Solutions Inc.
Tel:  613.235.4902
http://ca.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100
www.Can-Adapt.com
   
  Adapting the web to all users
            Including those with disabilities



-----Original Message-----
From: WBS Mailer on behalf of David100@sympatico.ca [mailto:webmaster@w3.org] 
Sent: December 6, 2013 10:21 PM
To: David100@sympatico.ca; public-wcag-em-comments@w3.org; shadi@w3.org; e.velleman@accessibility.nl
Subject: [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)
 self-assessment and third-party evaluation

Not critical: "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 identifynthings 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."

How about...

"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
 * ( ) I do not accept this section as draft
 * ( ) I abstain (not vote)
 

These answers were last modified on 7 December 2013 at 03:19:57 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 05:03:27 UTC