[wbs] response to 'Approval for publication of WCAG-EM 1.0 as a W3C Working Group Note'

The following answers have been successfully submitted to 'Approval for
publication of WCAG-EM 1.0 as a W3C Working Group Note' (public) for Yod
Samuel Martin.

> 
> ---------------------------------
> Abstract
> ----
> 
> 
> 

 * (x) accept this section
 * ( ) accept this section with the following suggestions
 * ( ) I do not accept this section for the following reasons
 * ( ) I abstain (not vote)
 


> 
> 
> ---------------------------------
> Introduction
> ----
> 
> 
> 

 * ( ) accept this section
 * (x) accept this section with the following suggestions
 * ( ) I do not accept this section for the following reasons
 * ( ) I abstain (not vote)
 
priority: mild (editorial)
location: definition of "Template"
current wording: "From ATAG 2.0 definition for "templates"
suggested revision: add ATAG 2.0 as well to the reference section
rationale: its definitions are used in the text (can it be referenced
despite being still a CR?)

> 
> 
> ---------------------------------
> Using This Methodology
> ----
> 
> 
> 

 * (x) accept this section
 * ( ) accept this section with the following suggestions
 * ( ) I do not accept this section for the following reasons
 * ( ) I abstain (not vote)
 


> 
> 
> ---------------------------------
> Scope of Applicability
> ----
> 
> 
> 

 * ( ) accept this section
 * (x) accept this section with the following suggestions
 * ( ) I do not accept this section for the following reasons
 * ( ) I abstain (not vote)
 
Priority: mild (editorial)
Location: Re-Running Website Evaluation, last paragraph
Current wording: "is typically ~50%"
suggested revision: replace the tilde with a complete word (e.g.
"approximately 50%", "around 50%").
rationale: this sign is mathematical jargon, not suitable to be used within
running text, and not always screen-reader friendly.

> 
> 
> ---------------------------------
> Step 1: Define the Evaluation Scope
> ----
> 
> 
> 

 * (x) accept this section
 * ( ) accept this section with the following suggestions
 * ( ) I do not accept this section for the following reasons
 * ( ) I abstain (not vote)
 


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

 * (x) accept this section
 * ( ) accept this section with the following suggestions
 * ( ) I do not accept this section for the following reasons
 * ( ) I abstain (not vote)
 


> 
> 
> ---------------------------------
> Step 3: Select a Representative Sample
> ----
> 
> 
> 

 * ( ) accept this section
 * (x) accept this section with the following suggestions
 * ( ) I do not accept this section for the following reasons
 * ( ) I abstain (not vote)
 
priority: medium
location: Step 3.a: Include a Structured Sample and  Step 3.b: Include a
Randomly Selected Sample 
current wording: "The number of required instances of web pages and web
page states depends on the particular aspects of the website explained in
the previous section factors influencing the sample  size" regarding the
structured sample and "The number of web pages and web page states to
randomly select is  10% of the structured sample  selected through the
previous steps, with a  minimum of 5" in the randomly selected sample. 
suggested revision: Clarify the relation between the selection criteria and
the sizes of both samples.
rationale: It seems there is some inconsistency here. Some aspects
explained in the step introduction do not influence step 3.b, but the step
takes them into consideration. Conversely, some of the steps do influence
step 3.c but they are kept out. 
For instance "Adherence to development processes" should not affect the
size of the structured sample, as it doesn't add more of any of these:
common web pages, essential functionalities, types of web page states, web
technologies relied upon, or other relevant web pages. However, it should
yet influence the size of the random sample, as the introduction states
these sites show more (or less) variation in code quality and
accessibility.
Likewise, a higher required level of confidence may not require a larger
structured sample: if I have already considered one page of each
combination, adding more does not cover any new essential functionalities,
etc. Yet the level of confidence should require a larger random sample.

Step 3.e: Include a Randomly Selected Sample
priority: mild (editorial)
location: Step 3.d: Include Complete Processes, 1st list item
current wording: "For any web page and web page state selected (...),
locate the starting point (...) for the process and include them in the
selected sample"
suggested revision: "For *each* web page and web page state selected (...),
locate the starting point (...) for the process and include *it* in the
selected sample"
rationale: grammar agreement and concord


priority: medium
location: Step 3.b: Include a Randomly Selected Sample 
current wording: random
suggested revision: Add a sentence explaining that "random sampling does
not imply following a uniform sampling distribution". For instance,
following one of the suggested sampling methods, if web pages are extracted
from access logs at random, most visited pages would be overrepresented,
but this is not necessarily wrong.
rationale: Clarify that random does not mean "with equal probability".

> 
> 
> ---------------------------------
> Step 4: Audit the Selected Sample
> ----
> 
> 
> 

 * (x) accept this section
 * ( ) accept this section with the following suggestions
 * ( ) I do not accept this section for the following reasons
 * ( ) I abstain (not vote)
 


> 
> 
> ---------------------------------
> Step 5: Report the Evaluation Findings
> ----
> 
> 
> 

 * ( ) accept this section
 * (x) accept this section with the following suggestions
 * ( ) I do not accept this section for the following reasons
 * ( ) I abstain (not vote)
 
priority: medium
location: Methodology Requirement 5.d: Provide an Aggregated score
(Optional).
current wording: this sentence has been removed since the previous WD "It
is also recommended that the scoring approach is documented and made
available to the evaluation commissioner along with the report to
facilitate transparency and repeatability"
suggested revision: reintroduce that sentence or something similar
rationale: The document has now removed all the details about scoring
systems. However, this should not prevent the evaluators from documenting
whatever scoring system they are using, if any.


> 
> 
> ---------------------------------
> Remaing Comments
> ----
> Provide any remaining comments that you may have.
> 
> 
Comments: 
priority: mild
location: throughout
current wording: "web pages and web page states", "web page or web page
state", versus "web pages" (alone), "web page" (alone), "web pages and
states of web pages".
suggested revision: revise each instance of the use of "web page" (alone)
and "web pages" (alone), and check whether they should appear together with
"or web page state", "and web page states". Both terms are not always
needed, but sometimes they are. In addition, replace the single appearance
of "states of web pages" with "web page states".
rationale: consistency in the usage of "web pages and web page states"
throughout the document.

> 
> These answers were last modified on 24 June 2014 at 15:41:18 U.T.C.
> by Yod Samuel Martin
> 
Answers to this questionnaire can be set and changed at
https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/1/WCAG-EM-20140623/ until 2014-06-30.

 Regards,

 The Automatic WBS Mailer

Received on Tuesday, 24 June 2014 15:42:05 UTC