- From: WBS Mailer on behalf of detlev.fischer@testkreis.de <webmaster@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 12:09:01 +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 Detlev Fischer. --------------------------------- 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) priority: mild I agree to reinstate the section Michael refers to, with a minor change. Current wording (actually wording of previous version quoted by Michael): "...on evaluating the conformance of these selected web pages to the target level of WCAG 2.0 conformance" We have conformance twice here. Suggested revision: "...on evaluating the conformance of these selected web pages to the targeted level of WCAG 2.0" Actually, there is practically no guidance regarding the evaluation of content bar a blanket referral to the Techniques, so perhaps this part should be deleted? --------------------------------- 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) Cf. Loretta's wording suggestion: "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." Would we want to require that techniques used for evaluation need to be documented somewhere in the public domain? If so, I would suggest: "The methodolody relies on evaluating against publicly documented 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." -------------- Suggestion by Kerstin Probiesch to remove section "Review teams": This section is optional and clearly states that evaluations can be carried out by individuals. Even experienced evaluators can miss things, so a second pair of eyes is often beneficial. I see no need to remove the section. Perhaps change wording instead of deletion? Current wording: "While not required for using this methodology, the use of review teams is highly recommended when performing an evaluation of a website." Suggested wording: While not required for using this methodology, the use of review teams is often beneficial when performing an evaluation of a website. -------------- Priority: high Location: Terms and Definitions, Entry Web Page States Current wording: "Some web page states are ancilliary or treated similarly to individual web pages in the context of this methodology." Suggested revision: "In the context of this methodology, web page states can be treated as ancilliary to pages (i.e., recorded as additional state of a page in a page sample) or as individual web pages." Rationale: Current wording is rather fuzzy. I admit that the content in brackets may go beyond what you would expect in the definition of a term but "ancilliary to pages" alone does not indicate that states should be recorded with their base page during exploration and sampling. --------------------------------- 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) Priority: medium Location: Step 3.a: Include Common Web Pages of the Website Methodology Requirement 3.a: Include all common web pages, including web page states, into the selected sample. Current wording: "Include all common web pages and web page states that were identified in Step 2.a: Identify Common Web Pages of the Website into the selected sample for evaluation." Suggested revision: "Include all common web pages and web page states that were identified in Step 2.a: Identify Common Web Pages of the Website into the selected sample for evaluation. Web page states and the method to call them up can be recorded together with the base page. Alternatively, web page states can constitute a separate page." Rationale: I think we should make it clear to evaluators that they will often need to call up additional states to be evaluated, and the idea of replicability requires that the way to call up states is documented. I am not happy with my own wording though, so maybe someone else has a better suggestion? --------------------------------- 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 * (x) accept this section as draft with the following suggestions * ( ) I do not accept this section as draft * ( ) I abstain (not vote) Priority: high Location: Step 5.d: Provide a Performance Score (Optional) Suggested revision: This optional step suggests three different scoring approaches: by aite, by page, and by instance. The first two are pretty uncontroversial. The third approach suggests a score calculation based on instances on the page "for which each WCAG 2.0 Success Criterion is applicable". In the last Eval TF Telco, there was a consensus decision (with one abstention) to remove this third type of scoring method: http://www.w3.org/2013/12/05-eval-minutes.html In a future version of WCAG-EM, we might express that there are different ways of calculating scores. If references are given, these might point to the approach that is currently being proposed (or anything that has emerged from work on UWEM 2 ?), the Accessibility Priority Tool used by Roger Hudson and others, or some other additional, informative graded scoring approach that can reflect the criticality of failed instances. These answers were last modified on 10 December 2013 at 12:07:28 U.T.C. by Detlev Fischer 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 12:09:03 UTC