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 k.probiesch@gmail.com <webmaster@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2013 09:21:01 +0000
To: public-wcag-em-comments@w3.org,shadi@w3.org,e.velleman@accessibility.nl
Message-Id: <wbs-be9bbdcdaaed4141e4f215d60c350591@cgi.w3.org>
The following answers have been successfully submitted to 'Approval for
draft publication of WCAG-EM' (public) for Kerstin Probiesch.


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



 * (x) 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)
 


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



 * ( ) 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)
 # Priority: strong

Location: "The methodology relies on WCAG 2.0 techniques such as the
Techniques for WCAG 2.0 documented by W3C/WAI, but is not limited to this
set of techniques."

Suggestion: Delete this sentence.

This is in contradiction with the idea and the concept of the Techniques
Document. Not if a technique is used is important but wether an SC is met
or not. Therefore a methodology for evaluating can't rely on techniques.
What the WG has published here:
http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/wcag2faq.html#techsnot is also relevant for
evaluators. Even with "but is not limited to this set of techniques." the
paragraph places too much emphasis on the techniques.

# Priority: strong

Location: Review Teams (Optional)

Current Wording: Whole section

Suggested revision: Delete the section "Review Teams"

Rationale: 

That Review Teams are helping to identify barriers "more effectively" is at
a first glance a logical statement, but because there are no systematic
data which provide evidence it is just a thesis or an opinion. Two
examples: a. is the evaluation of a Review Team with some months experience
"more effectively" than the evaluation carried out by an individual
evaluator with 5, 6, 7 years or more experience? b. what if a Review Team
are testing their own interpretation: are the results of this Review Team
better than the results of an individual evaluator who follows for examples
decisions of the WCAG Working Group? As this is an opinion which is not
substantiated by systematical data it can't be "highly recommended".

When we speak about evaluation we of course speak about accessibility, but
we also speak about business models and about a lot of money. Evaluators
are in competition with one another Individual Evalators are in competition
with Testing Organizations. WCAG-EM is for example explicitly mentioned in
the "European Accessibility Requirements for Public Procurement of Products
and Services in the ICT Domain" especially in this document:
http://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_en/301500_301599/301549/01.00.00_20/en_301549v010000c.pdf
(page 90, note 2). It is likely that the preference of Review Teams over
Individual Evaluators will have a negative impact on the free competition.

We should give guidance on how to evaluate web pages and should obstain
from all (as long as they are not facts) what is likely to prefer one group
of evaluators.


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


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



 * ( ) 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 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 9 December 2013 at 09:18:14 U.T.C.
by Kerstin Probiesch

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 Monday, 9 December 2013 09:21:03 UTC

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