[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 Michael
Elledge.

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

 * ( ) 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: first paragraph. Current wording: "This
document is one of a series of informative W3C/WAI resources about
Evaluating Websites for Accessibility that complements the WCAG 2.0
Documents." Suggested revision: "complements" with "complement." "It does
not define additional WCAG 2.0 requirements nor does it replace or
supersede it in any way." Replace "supersede it" with "supersede them."
Rationale: Improve grammar.

> 
> 
> ---------------------------------
> 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: medium. Location: Introduction section. Current wording: "how
much knowledge the evaluators have of how the website was or is being
developed". Suggested revision: "how much knowledge evaluators have of the
website's development" and "feature by feature" with "feature-by-feature".
Location: Purposes section. Current wording: "Web accessibility monitoring
activities used to benchmark or compare the accessibility conformance over
time." Suggested revision: "Web accessibility monitoring activities used to
benchmark or compare accessibility conformance over time." Rationale:
Improve grammar.

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

 * (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
> ----
> 
> 
> 

 * ( ) 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: Description; 2nd paragraph, Step 1.a. Current
wording: "in such a way that for each web page it is unambiguous whether it
is within scope or not". Suggested revision: "so that it is unambiguous
that a web page is within scope." Rationale: Clarify.
Priority: Medium. Location: 1st paragraph. Current wording: "define the
target WCAG 2.0 conformance level ("A", "AA", or "AAA") to evaluate to."
Suggested revision: "define the target WCAG 2.0 conformance level ("A",
"AA", or "AAA")." Alternatively: "define the target WCAG 2.0 conformance
level ("A", "AA", or "AAA") for evaluation." Rationale: Grammar.
Priority: Medium. Location: 2nd paragraph, Step 1.c. Current wording:
"website is expected to work with, and that is in-line with." "common
expectations on." Suggested Revisions: "website is expected to work with,
and that are in-line with." "common expectations for." Rationale: Grammar.
Priority: Medium. Location: 3rd paragraph, Step 1c. Current wording:
"extended with the tools that were used in addition." Suggested revision:
"extended with the additional tools." Rationale: Grammar.
Priority: Medium. Location: Definition, Step 1d. Current wording: "agreed
on between." Suggested revision: "agreed by." Rationale: Grammar.
Priority: medium. Location: 4th bullet point, Step 1.d. Current wording:
"Explanation of possible solutions to the encountered issues beyond what
would be in the scope of website evaluation." Suggested revision:
"Description of possible solutions to the issues encountered beyond the
scope of the evaluation." Rationale: Clarity.

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

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


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


> 
> 
> ---------------------------------
> Remaing Comments
> ----
> Provide any remaining comments that you may have.
> 
> 
Comments: 


> 
> These answers were last modified on 30 June 2014 at 21:17:14 U.T.C.
> by Michael Elledge
> 
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 21:18:03 UTC