- From: WBS Mailer on behalf of lorettaguarino@google.com <webmaster@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 04:18:01 +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 Loretta Guarino Reid. --------------------------------- 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) cf Michael. I think this would relieve my (mild) discomfort with the first sentence. While the rest of the paragraph tries to make clear the scope of the document, "provides guidance on evaluating how well websites conform" is still easily read as "the way" rather than "a way". --------------------------------- Introduction ---- * ( ) 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) Editor: * cf Bim * second paragraph: "though in the majority of use cases it does not directly result into conformance claims." -> "though in the majority of use cases it does not directly result in conformance claims." * Add commas to first sentence of Background Reading: "The information below, related to web accessibility essentials, evaluation, and WCAG 2.0, is important for using this methodology:" Suggestion to address Kerstin's comment: "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." -> "The methodolody relies on evaluating against techniques for meeting WCAG 2.0 success criteria, such as the Techniques for WCAG 2.0 documented by W3C/WAI, but does not require this or any other specific set of techniques." --------------------------------- Using This Methodology ---- * (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) --------------------------------- 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 ---- * (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 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 ---- * (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 4: Audit the Selected 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) Agree with David that we should recommend a different term than "not applicable". "No matching content"? "satisfied by omission"? "automatically satisfied"? --------------------------------- 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 10 December 2013 at 04:16:05 U.T.C. by Loretta Guarino Reid 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 Tuesday, 10 December 2013 04:18:02 UTC