- From: WBS Mailer on behalf of k.probiesch@gmail.com <webmaster@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2013 09:42:01 +0000
- To: public-wcag-em-comments@w3.org,shadi@w3.org,e.velleman@accessibility.nl
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 * (x) accept this section as draft with the following suggestions * ( ) I do not accept this section as draft * ( ) I abstain (not vote) What David says. --------------------------------- 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) Same opinion like David. --------------------------------- 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) Also on this David's statement reflects my own opinion. Two additional points: # Priority: strong Location and current wording: "About the Evaluation" point 1: Name of the evaluator (responsible person, organization, or other entity)" Suggestion: Names of the evaluators (responsible person, members of the review teams, organization, or other entity) Reason: transparency (especially because WCAG-EM is part of "European Accessibility Requirements for Public Procurement of Products and Services in the ICT Domain") These answers were last modified on 9 December 2013 at 09:41:44 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 09:42:03 UTC