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: Howard Kramer via WBS Mailer <webmaster@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 23:45:01 +0000
To: hkramer@colorado.edu,public-wcag-em-comments@w3.org,shadi@w3.org,e.velleman@accessibility.nl
Message-Id: <wbs-b5e610f73d8ed1936a893045b0fcc685@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 Howard
Kramer.

> 
> ---------------------------------
> 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: medium
location: last line of second paragraph of Introduction
current wording: This methodology supports common approaches and
understanding for evaluating the extent of conformance of websites to WCAG
2.0, though in the majority of use cases it does not directly result in
conformance claims.
suggested revision: I don't have a specific revision but it was perhaps the
only sentence I found confusing due to the wording, in particular the
phrase "understanding for" it did not quite make sense. Also, the whole
issue of when this evaluation could be used to make conformance claims was
no 100% clear to me. Maybe an example here could help.
rationale: lack of clarity

> 
> 
> ---------------------------------
> 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)
 
Good examples.

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

 * ( ) 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 above "Step 3.a: Include a Structured Sample"
current wording: This selection in this step relies initially on the
exploration carried out in Step 2: Explore the Target Website. The
selection is also continually refined during the following Step 4: Audit
the Selected Sample, as the evaluator learns more about the particular
implementation aspects of the target website.
suggested revision: depends on meaning of "This selection in this step"
rationale: All the other statements that being "During this step" occur
right under an overall methodology item (usually highlighted with a box
border that it is clear what "step" is being referred to. Here, I wasn't
sure if "this selection in this step" referred to 3a alone or the whole of
methodology 3.

> 
> 
> ---------------------------------
> Step 4: Audit the Selected 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: mild
location: all the sub-headings under 4a. such as "Conforming Alternate
Versions" 
current wording: these sub-headings are styled in italics with an
underline. I think this is the only instance where this type of formatting
is used for headings or sub-headings.
suggested revision: follow the convention for sub-headings used elsewhere
in document.
rationale: First, of all, these items don't stand out as headings because
their font weight and size is same as underlying paragraphs. Second, they
look like links - another source of confusion.

> 
> 
> ---------------------------------
> 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
 * (x) I abstain (not vote)
 


> 
> 
> ---------------------------------
> Remaing Comments
> ----
> Provide any remaining comments that you may have.
> 
> 
Comments: 
Great work. I know this isn't supposed to show how to apply WCAG 2.0
specifically but the step from "audit" to actually evaluating samples
seemed like it needed some clarification or an example. In other words, how
would you decide which WCAG 2.0 rules to evaluate. You have the The "five
WCAG 2.0 conformance requirements" but I thought some type of example of
how you would then apply WCAG 2.0 to conduct the audit would be helpful.

> 
> These answers were last modified on 30 June 2014 at 23:44:55 U.T.C.
> by Howard Kramer
> 
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 23:45:03 UTC

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