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 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
Message-Id: <wbs-3957503d04abbc837b76b7cb6cdcb84c@cgi.w3.org>
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

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