- From: WBS Mailer on behalf of kathy@interactiveaccessibility.com <webmaster@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 14:03:01 +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 Kathleen Wahlbin. --------------------------------- Abstract ---- * (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) --------------------------------- Introduction ---- * (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) --------------------------------- 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: medium location: Particular Types of Websites > Website in Multiple Versions current wording: Note: Websites using responsive design techniques (i.e. adapting the presentation according to user hardware, software, and preferences) as opposed to redirecting the user to a different location are not considered to be independent website versions. suggested revision: Note: Websites using responsive design techniques (i.e. adapting the presentation according to user hardware, software, and preferences) as opposed to redirecting the user to a different location are not considered to be independent website versions unless the site at the different breakpoints utilizes different code. In that case, the website at the different breakpoints could be considered as individual websites each for evaluation. rationale: clarify what is needed for evaluating responsive websites --------------------------------- 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 ---- * ( ) 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 location: Step 2a and Step 2c current wording: Methodology Requirement 2.a: Identify the common web pages, including web page states, of the target website. Explore the target website to identfy its common web pages, which may also be web page states in web applications. Typically these are linked directly from the main entry point (home page) of the target website, and often linked from the header, navigation, and footer sections of other web pages. The outcome of this step is a list of all common web pages and web page states. suggested revision: Methodology Requirement 2.a: Identify the common web pages of the target website. Explore the target website to identify its common web pages, which may also be web page states in web applications. Typically these are linked directly from the main entry point (home page) of the target website, and often linked from the header, navigation, and footer sections of other web pages. The outcome of this step is a list of all common web pages. rationale: Both of these two section talk about web page states. Remove this from step 2a since it is detailed in step 2c. This would simplify the steps. The word "identfy" is not spelled correctly. --------------------------------- 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) priority: strong location: none/missing current wording: n/a suggested revision: Add a new step to include information on how to use assistive technology in testing. This step could be marked as optional. rationale: In section 1.c, we ask people to define the web browser, assistive technologies and other user agents for which features provided on the website are to be accessibility supported but then we do not have language about this in the auditing of the selected sample. I feel that this should be included. --------------------------------- 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 12 December 2013 at 14:01:30 U.T.C. by Kathleen Wahlbin 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 14:03:03 UTC