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: Kerstin Probiesch via WBS Mailer <webmaster@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 08:48:02 +0000
To: k.probiesch@gmail.com,public-wcag-em-comments@w3.org,shadi@w3.org,e.velleman@accessibility.nl
Message-Id: <wbs-9d2dee8801c01dadf491c10f6f3cc531@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 Kerstin
Probiesch.

> 
> ---------------------------------
> 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)
 
Same opinion like David. I also think that the section "combined expertise"
gives advantages to organizations. I would agree with David's suggestion -
except the last sentences and suggest:

"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."

> 
> 
> ---------------------------------
> 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)
 


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

 * (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 4: Audit the Selected Sample
> ----
> 
> 
> 

 * ( ) 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)
 
I like this section, especially because of the mentioned Conformance
Requirements. I'm missing explict guidance on criteria for passing and
failing an evaluation. Please add explicitly "pass/fail" as scheme for the
auditing the samples.

> 
> 
> ---------------------------------
> 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)
 
5.d: Provide an Aggregated score (Optional).

This section is much better now. Thanks for the improvement.

Prio: strong

Please change "there is currently no single widely recognized metric that
reflects the required reliability, accuracy, and practicality."  into
"there is currently no single metric that reflects the required
reliability, accuracy, and practicality."

I feel that "no widely recognized metric that reflects the required
reliability, accuracy, and practicality." indicates that there are systems
which are reflecting reliaibility and so on and that this metrix is just
not "widely recognized". I believe it's a bit contradictory, because if
there would be a metric like this, it would be widely recognized.

Prio mild:

I would still prefer to see the whole score-section as statement in the
appendices section and not even as optional, as long as there is no metric
which reflects goodness criteria for tests.



> 
> 
> ---------------------------------
> Remaing Comments
> ----
> Provide any remaining comments that you may have.
> 
> 
Comments: 
Good work. I especially like the sampling sections.

> 
> These answers were last modified on 30 June 2014 at 08:47:51 U.T.C.
> by Kerstin Probiesch
> 
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 Monday, 30 June 2014 08:48:04 UTC

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