- From: WBS Mailer on behalf of richard.warren@userite.com <webmaster@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2013 21:18:01 +0000
- To: richard.warren@userite.com,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 Richard Warren. --------------------------------- 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 ---- * (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) --------------------------------- Using This Methodology ---- * ( ) 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) I would like to re-arrange the text in the section "Evaluation Tools" to make it more clear that automated testing will never be sufficient on its own. I suggest changing the second sentence to read "Many checks are not automatable, however, web accessibility evaluation tools can significantly assist evaluators during the evaluation process and contribute to more effective evaluation" Sentence 4 would not then be required. --------------------------------- Scope of Applicability ---- * (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) --------------------------------- 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 * (x) I abstain (not vote) Steps 1d and 1e. I understand, and approve of, the concept but I am not sure if the wording is right and cannot think of how to improve it at this stage. --------------------------------- Step 2: Explore the Target Website ---- * (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) --------------------------------- Step 3: Select a Representative 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) The implication is now that ALL websites require selecting a representative sample. This is not so. Ideally all pages should be evaluated. If, and only if, the site is too large for a full evaluation to be viable should we need to select a representative sample. Also I am not happy with the step 3e (select a random sample). There have been many discussions about this and no definitive conclusion. I suggest that we leave the method of selecting the random sample up to the evaluator - who MUST record his/her method in step 5 so that it can be replicated. --------------------------------- Step 4: Audit the Selected Sample ---- * (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) --------------------------------- Step 5: Record the Evaluation Findings ---- * (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) These answers were last modified on 9 December 2013 at 21:16:53 U.T.C. by Richard Warren 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 21:18:03 UTC