- From: WBS Mailer on behalf of alistair.j.garrison@gmail.com <webmaster@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 12:06:01 +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 Alistair Garrison. --------------------------------- 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 [High] Make the following sentence bold "It is primarily designed for evaluating existing websites, for example to learn about them and to monitor their level of accessibility." Rationale: It is the only place in the whole document that the documents actual purpose is defined - if you miss this sentence, you will not understand the purpose of the document just from the text. Priority [Medium] Remove ", which is addressed by the WCAG 2.0 techniques layer" from the second sentence. You do not need to use or follow WCAG 2.0 techniques. --------------------------------- 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) Priority [High] "Web Page States" - should be "Web Page DOM States" - it is important to tell the reader that it is the DOM which is changing, after the page has loaded, not the web page (which could be construed as web page source code). Priority [Low] Sentence "considerations that evaluators to apply", should be "considerations that evaluators should take onboard when applying". Sentence "result into conformance claims" should be "result in conformance claims". The phase is "result in", not "result into" - this needs a global replace. --------------------------------- 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) Priority [Low] First sentence "evaluation of websites with WCAG 2.0" should be "evaluation of websites against WCAG 2.0". Priority [Low] Change "Required Expertise" section to read: It is assumed that users of this methodology have a deep working knowledge of all topics covered in the Background Reading section, especially: - WCAG 2.0; - accessible web design; - assistive technologies and how people with different disabilities use the Web; - WCAG 2.0 evaluation techniques; and - tools which can help identify potential barriers for people with disabilities. Reason - It makes it easier for people to read. --------------------------------- 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 ---- * (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 ---- * ( ) 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] Step 5.c: Provide an Evaluation Statement Currently there is no difference between the official Conformance claim text and what people put in the statement. We cannot let people put "Conformance level satisfied" - because in the majority of cases the methodology will not allow this. My proposal would be to change "Conformance level satisfied" to "Conformance level evaluated" - with some boiler plate text to cover the outcomes i.e. No issues where discovered, etc... These answers were last modified on 12 December 2013 at 12:03:15 U.T.C. by Alistair Garrison 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 Thursday, 12 December 2013 12:06:07 UTC