W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wcag-em-comments@w3.org > June 2014

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

From: David MacDonald via WBS Mailer <webmaster@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 14:57:01 +0000
To: public-wcag-em-comments@w3.org,shadi@w3.org,e.velleman@accessibility.nl
Message-Id: <wbs-56b173baf8a3e356286fd3f9bb59f466@cgi.w3.org>
The following answers have been successfully submitted to 'Approval for
publication of WCAG-EM 1.0 as a W3C Working Group Note' (public) for David
MacDonald.

> 
> ---------------------------------
> 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
> ----
> 
> 
> 

 * (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)
 


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

 * ( ) accept this section
 * ( ) accept this section with the following suggestions
 * (x) I do not accept this section for the following reasons
 * ( ) I abstain (not vote)
 
Combined Expertise (Optional)
"Though this methodology can be carried out by an individual evaluator with
the skills described in the previous section (Required Expertise), using
the combined expertise of different evaluators may provide broader coverage
of the required skills and help identify accessibility barriers more
effectively..."

===========
The referenced document "Using Combined Expertise to Evaluate Web
Accessibility" is 12 years old (2002)

I appreciate the first and last sentence disclaimer, but the message seems
clear... more evaluators on content is better. We had some discussion of
this section at CSUN and at TPAC. Several veteran evaluators who have
worked in large organizations, also felt that this is not the reality of
how things work.  Accessibility evaluation companies that I know of use
teams of evaluators, but they split up a site and each evaluator takes a
separate section. They are not combining expertise on the same content. I
think the current language  unnecessarily gives advantages organizations
with teams of evaluators giving the mistaken impression to procurement
departments that they better meet this recommendation than smaller firms,
even though in reality they have 1:1 ratio of one evaluator to any chunk of
content. 

Full disclosure... we are a small consultancy. We usually include users
with disabilities in our testing but that is a separate section of this
document... this section is about teams of evaluators looking at the same
content. 

How about a friendly amendment that might better address the issue?
===============
Combined Expertise (Optional)

"This methodology can be carried out by an individual evaluator with the
skills described in the previous section (Required Expertise). Using the
combined expertise of different evaluators may provide an effective way to
evaluate content when some of the required expertise is missing from one
team member but is possessed by another on the team.  While not required
for using this methodology, the use of review teams may sometimes be
necessary and/or beneficial. Using Combined Expertise to Evaluate Web
Accessibility provides further guidance on using the combined expertise of
review teams, which is beyond the scope of this document."

======
Also I would put the paragraph "Involving Users (Optional)" with
disabilities above this paragraph on combined expertise because I think it
is more important. I also think the paragraph on Evaluation tools is more
important in the section.



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

 * (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)
 
"...amount of replaced web pages in a fresh sample is typically ~50% though
this could be increased when web pages on a website mostly conform to WCAG
2.0."

Wondering where 50% came from? I don't object particularly, but wondering.

> 
> 
> ---------------------------------
> 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
> ----
> 
> 
> 

 * ( ) 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)
 
"Note: Where possible, it is often also useful to identify the libraries
and components used to create the website, such as Dojo, jQuery" ... 

perhaps add something like "if a CMS is used it will be helpful to identify
it, and it's version, along with a list library components added to it's
core framework."

> 
> 
> ---------------------------------
> Step 3: Select a Representative 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)
 
I like the 10% idea... its practical and easy to calculate... this entire
section really makes sense to me now.

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

 * ( ) accept this section
 * ( ) accept this section with the following suggestions
 * ( ) I do not accept this section for the following reasons
 * ( ) I abstain (not vote)
 
"For example, evaluators may utilize specific testing instructions and
protocols that may be publicly documented or only available to the
evaluators."

May need to add a sentence that they would need to be able demonstrate that
techniques they chose have actually met the SC.

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

"Optionally, an evaluation report can specifically indicate Success
Criteria for which there is no relevant content, for example, with "not
present".

May want to check in with Gregg on this... I personally don't have a
problem with it, but it was a pretty hot topic at one point. "Not present"
is better than N/A, and may be ok with him.



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

 * ( ) accept this section
 * ( ) accept this section with the following suggestions
 * ( ) I do not accept this section for the following reasons
 * ( ) I abstain (not vote)
 
Methodology Requirement 5.c:

Conformance level <keep-bold>evaluated</keep-bold>
Accessibility support <keep-bold>baseline</keep-bold>

Perhaps a sentence should be added such as 
"All pages sampled in this evaluation pass WCAG 2"
this could help distinguish this from a WCAG conformance statement.



> 
> 
> ---------------------------------
> Remaing Comments
> ----
> Provide any remaining comments that you may have.
> 
> 
Comments: 
It's come a long way and I think it is just about ready. It's hard to get a
bunch of evaluators to agree, and this for the most part has been
accomplished. Congrats all around.

> 
> These answers were last modified on 25 June 2014 at 14:56:27 U.T.C.
> by David MacDonald
> 
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 Wednesday, 25 June 2014 14:57:03 UTC

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