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 gv@trace.wisc.edu <webmaster@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 06:12:01 +0000
To: public-wcag-em-comments@w3.org,shadi@w3.org,e.velleman@accessibility.nl
Message-Id: <wbs-02470d79fe2b3b35ef235a76077175fa@cgi.w3.org>
The following answers have been successfully submitted to 'Approval for
draft publication of WCAG-EM' (public) for Gregg Vanderheiden.


---------------------------------
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)
 This document has come a long way.  Congratulations. 

Some minor and a couple larger concerns -- but overall a very nice job.


===========================
In the ABSTRACT   -- one bug

" It does not provide instructions for evaluating web content feature by
feature, which is addressed by the WCAG 2.0 techniques layer. "     is not
correct.  The techniques are not designed to be used for evaluation.   they
are neither necessary nor sufficient -- so they cannot be used to
evaluate.

suggest that the sentence be revised to read:

 "It does not provide instructions for evaluating web content feature by
feature, which is addressed by WCAG 2.0 success criteria."

(otherwise very nice) 


---------------------------------
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)
 1)  This sentence 1 of paragraph 2 ends with ".....  and highlights
considerations that evaluators to apply these steps in the context of a
particular website. "   which does not grok. It seems to be missing a word
or something. 

2) Last sentence of PP 2 ends: "...though in the majority of use cases it
does not directly result into conformance claims."    suggest either    
"result in confomance claim language" or   "resolve into conformance
claims"  (though that is a bit ambiguous)  or something. But it currently
is unclear what it is trying to say. 

3) Remove "ALSO" from third paragraph. 

4)  I think removing the first   WCAG 2.0   from this sentence will make it
clearer that the techniques you are referring to are more than the WCAG 2.0
WG defined techniques.   (  "WCAG 2.0 techniques" can very easily be
misread  "WCAG 2.0 WG techniques".   
"The methodology relies on WCAG 2.0 techniques such as the Techniques for
WCAG 2.0 ..."

================================
UNDER   "Relation to WCAG 2.0 Conformance Claims
===============================
Sentence 1 reads
"WCAG 2.0 defines conformance requirements for individual web pages that
are known to satisfy each conformance requirement, rather than for entire
websites.  It also defines how .... "   doesn’t read well.  Not clear
what it is saying.   I THINK you might mean

"WCAG 2.0 defines conformance requirements for individual web pages (and in
some cases, sets of web pages), but does not describe how to evaluate
entire websites.   WCAG 2.0 also defines how... "

====================
UNDER TERMS AND DEFINITIONS
====================

I understand the purpose  of the term "core functionality" but its use
bothers me very much, since it has been abused so completely in every other
domain of accessibility.  For the W3C to define or endose the term is
extremely troubling.   

I would advise talking about  "High Frequency pages" -- and "Pages needed
to complete processes".    And woud really speak against the use of the
term CORE.   It is not needed,  and it is extraodinarily dangerous - both
for web page evaluation and dangerous to accessibilty overall. 
<this is the only show stopper problem with this section. >
< SEE " STEP 2" question below for a resolution to this issue.  The
definition here would be 

DEPENDENT COMPONENTS
COMPONENTS of a website that, if removed, fundamentally changes the use,
purpose, OR FUNCTIONALITY of the website for users. This includes
information that users of a website refer to and tasks that they carry out
to perform this functionality.
Note: Examples of functionality include "selecting and purchasing a product
from the shop area of the website", "filling and submitting the form
provided on the website", and "registering for an account on the website".
Note: Other PARTS OF THE WEBSITE ARE not excluded from the scope of
evaluation. The term "DEPENDENT COMPONENTS" is intended to help identify
critical web pages and include them among others in an evaluation.

(one COULD use DEPENDENT FUNCTIONALITY if "components" causes problems but
DEPENDENT COMPONENTS is better for a number of reasons).   But CORE isn't
really correct and is quite dangerous.


---------------------------------
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
----



 * ( ) 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)
 Step 1d says:
"W3C/WAI provides a set of publicly documented (non-normative) Techniques
for WCAG 2.0 that help evaluate conformance to WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria.
However, it is not necessary to use these particular techniques (see
Understanding Techniques for WCAG Success Criteria). Some evaluators might
use other methods (inline with the requirements for custom techniques) to
evaluate conformance to WCAG 2.0.W3C/WAI provides a set of publicly
documented (non-normative) Techniques for WCAG 2.0 that help evaluate
conformance to WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria. "

However, techniques are not designed or provided for evaluation.  They are
provided as example  ways to meet SC.   Suggest changing this to:  
"W3C/WAI provides a set of publicly documented (non-normative) Techniques
for WCAG 2.0 that provide one way to meet the WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria. 
W3C/WAI provides a set of publicly documented (non-normative) Techniques
for WCAG 2.0 that ONE WAY TO MEET THE  WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria. However,
it is not necessary to use these particular techniques (see Understanding
Techniques for WCAG Success Criteria). Some AUTHORS might use other methods
(IN LINE with the requirements for custom techniques) to CREATE conformance
to WCAG 2.0 AND EVALUATORS SHOULD ACCEPT VIABLE ALTERNATIVE TECHNIQUES AS
WELL.

=========================================


---------------------------------
Step 2: Explore the Target Website
----



 * ( ) 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)
 Again the concept of CORE appears.  I think that what you seek can be
accomplished by changing the terminology to  "ESSENTIAL COMPONENTS".

This would achieve your goal and avoid the CORE FUNCTIONALITY landmine. 

Step 2.b: Identify DEPENDENT COMPONENTS of the Website

Methodology Requirement 2.b: Identify an initial list of DEPENDENT
COMPONENTS of the target website.

Explore the target website to identify its DEPENDENT COMPONENTS. While some
DEPENDENT COMPONENTS will be easy to identify, others will need more
deliberate discovery. For example, an online shop is expected to have a
payment function though it might be less easy to identify that it also has
a currency conversion function that is ESSENTIAL to the particular context
of the online shop - AND THAT THE FULL FUNCTIONING OF THE SHOP IS DEPENDENT
ON IT. The outcome of this step is a list of DEPENDENT COMPONENTS that
users MUST BE ABLE TO USE on the website, for example:

Selecting and purchasing products from web shop;
Filling and submitting the survey forms;
Registering for an account on the website.
Note: The purpose of this step is not to exhaustively identify all
functionality of a website but to determine those COMPONENTS that the
purpose and goal of the target website ARE DEPENDENT ON. This will inform
later selection of web pages and their evaluation. Other functionality will
also be included in the evaluation but through other selection mechanisms.




---------------------------------
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)
 TYPO:  need a space between   "distinctinstance" in requirement 3c

ALSO:  replace CORE FUNCTIONALITY with   DEPENDENT COMPONENTS

In step 3d you don't actually say anywhere  that ALL processes should be
included in the sample.  Just that if you select one page in a process- you
must include the whole process.  Maybe do DON'T WANT to say that all
processes are included.  (some site may have an almost endless number of
them).   Perhaps you should put this step AFTER the random selection step
and then say:   IF ANY OF THE ABOVE PROCESSES HAVE PUT A PAGE INTO YOUR
EVALUATION SAMPLE, WHERE THAT PAGE IS PART OF A PROCESS,  THEN ALL OF THE
PAGES INVOLVED IN THAT PROCESS MUST ALSO BE ADDED TO THE EVALUATION
SAMPLE.




---------------------------------
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)
 Please DO NOT use the term Not Applicable (or N/A).   The working group
went to great lengths to keep that term away from the evaluation process.  
ALL SC apply to a website.   If the site does not have MEDIA then all of
the pages meet the SC.  The SC are not NA.   Again, once evaluators start
labelling things NA -- all sorts of other reasons are used for the
designation.

Suggest changing in 4 - NOTE:
 In such cases, an evaluator may use an identifier such as "not applicable"
to denote the particular situations where Success Criteria are satisfied
because no matching content is presented.

to 

 In such cases, an evaluator may use an identifier such as "not present" to
denote the particular situations where Success Criteria are satisfied
because no matching content is presented.


=============================
REQUIREMENT 4e

I do not understand this one at all.

"The evaluation outcomes of the structured and random sample correlate when
they are sufficiently large and representative. While the individual
occurences of WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria will vary between the samples, the
randomly selected sample should not show new types of content (as
identified in Step 2: Explore the Target Website), and the outcomes from
evaluating these randomly selected sample should not show new findings to
those that were already determined in the structured sample. When the
correlation fails then evaluators need to select additional web pages and
web page states (as per Step 3: Select a Representative Sample), to reflect
the newly identified types of content and outcomes. The outcomes of Step 2:
Explore the Target Website might need to be adjusted accordingly as well.
This step is repeated until the structured sample is adequately
representative."

If the two correlate, then there would be no reason to do them both.  The
whole reason for doing both structured and random is because they will
provide different samples.   Also, the level of correlation is not
specified.   Nothing correlates 100% except a sample and itself.   And 50%
is chance.   Two unrelated things will correlate at .5 or so (on average). 
  (and how many people on the WCAG WG know how to calculate a correlation
of this type?)

ALSO - if the structured sample has a particularly troublesome type of
content, the random sample evaluation results will always be different.  
And if there is no more of that type in the site, you could random sample
forever and never get the random sample eval results to be the same as the
structured sample (it would always be better).   Finally, the two eval
results will never be the same ever unless they were the same sample or
they were both perfect,  (or it was one of those 1 in 10,000 chances). 

If the purpose of this is to just determine if the structured sample
includes all of the page and content types -- then I would avoid the word
correlation and just say:

Methodology Requirement 4.e: Check that each web page and web page state in
the randomly selected sample does not show types of content and outcomes
that are not represented in the structured sample.

The purpose of this step is to ensure that the overall sample includes all
of the page types.  This is done by comparing the structured and random
sample to see there are   new types of content (as identified in Step 2:
Explore the Target Website) found in the random sample than in the
structured sample.   If there are then the structured sample should be
expanded and a new random sample taken until the random sample produces no
new types of content.  At this point it is a fair assumption that the
sample is representative of the website (absent any other knowledg to the
contrary).  

DOES THIS DO WHAT YOU ARE TRYING TO ACHIEVE? 




---------------------------------
Step 5: Record the Evaluation Findings
----



 * ( ) 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 11 December 2013 at 06:10:19 U.T.C.
by Gregg Vanderheiden

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 Wednesday, 11 December 2013 06:12:02 UTC

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