- From: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 09:37:22 +0100
- To: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
- CC: GLWAI Guidelines WG org <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, Eval TF <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
Hi Gregg, Thank you very much for these updates. Some comments inline below: On 16.2.2013 22:11, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote: > > > On Feb 15, 2013, at 2:20 AM, Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org> wrote: > >> Hi Gregg, >> >> Thank you very much for getting this started! I think this will be a useful resource in many ways, including for reuse in WCAG-EM. >> >> A couple of initial comments: >> >> #1. The document does not describe the relationship between techniques and failures to the WCAG2 Success Criteria. There is some wording in Understanding WCAG 2.0 that could be at least referenced to put this resource more in context of the overall WCAG2 framework and resources. > > Fixed See new draft > http://tinyurl.com/WCAGTechNote > >> >> #2. The document seems to primarily talk about techniques and failures document by the WCAG WG and does not talk much about the possibility for other techniques and failures. This may reinforce the unfortunate myth that only WCAG WG can document techniques and failures. > Fixed > >> >> #3. (Minor) the overall tone seems more preventive and negative rather than inviting. For example, how about something like "The Role of Techniques and Failures in WCAG 2" rather than "Proper Use of WCAG 2.0 Techniques and Failures"? I think we need to find the balance between explaining what techniques and failures are, and cautioning potential misuse due to misunderstanding of their intended purpose. > > Yes it is. And after reading it over again (and making edits to address your comments ) it still is a bit - and I think perhaps it should be. (not negative - but short and focused on clarifying rather than instructing. "The Role of...." is all in the Understanding document. We were asked for something VERY SHORT and VERY CLEAR that could be used by people who misunderstood the Role. I am concerned that adding more words -- or turning this into a general discussion -- would defeat what we were asked for. > > That being said - I have tried to add more text to the document to help with your comments above. Take a look. Currently WCAG-EM is intended to instruct _evaluators_ (as opposed to authors/developers) on how to use techniques and failures (not only those from WCAG WG) throughout a conformance evaluation process. It references existing guidance in Understanding WCAG 2.0 and in WCAG 2.0 itself, but Eval TF also previously reported back that this guidance may be too sparse. For example, there is currently no description of what "failures" really are. We tried to provide such guidance here: - http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20130208#step1d - http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20130208#step4c We received an objection on these two sections in the WCAG WG survey: - https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WCAGevalTaskForce/results#xprocedur It seems that these comments are more of policy guidance nature and additional to the technical guidance that we are trying to provide in WCAG-EM. It is an issue that is beyond the scope of WCAG-EM alone. I don't think we can fully replace the guidance we currently provide in WCAG-EM with this new text on proper use of techniques and failures. Given the breadth of this issue I think we now need to decide if we need to hold publication of this updated Working Draft of WCAG-EM, or if we can maybe add some reviewer notes into the document clarifying that we expect these two sections to be updated in future drafts. It would allow WCAG WG to update its guidance on techniques and failures while Eval TF focuses on further refining WCAG-EM in parallel. If we can work in parallel, what reviewer notes and/or immediate fixes would you suggest for the current WCAG-EM sections (step 1.d and 4.c)? Regards, Shadi >> Regards, >> Shadi >> >> >> On 15.2.2013 00:56, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote: >>> >>> We have for some time had a problem with people misunderstanding WCAG 2.0 Techniques and Failures. Many have thought that the Techniques were required in order to conform to WCAG 2.0. We have done a number of things to address this - but not always with success. >>> >>> A suggestion was made that we create a single page with a simple message that could be pointed to by people wishing to make proper use of the Techniques clear. It was pointed out that such a page would be useful to many stakeholders and organizations, including the WCAG 2.0 Evaluation Taskforce. >>> >>> Such a page is posted for comments and suggestions at http://tinyurl.com/WCAGTechNote >>> >>> This page allows you to directly comment on the page. The page will be edited dynamically, so you can return to the page to see changes. You can also subscribe to the page to have comments and changes sent to you directly as they happen. (click on the Comments button and select "notification options".) >>> >>> The options you will find there are >>> >>> >>> Notification settings >>> Don't send me any email notifications (not recommended) >>> Enable email notifications >>> Notify me of all new comments and replies >>> Notify me of replies to my comments >>> Notify me of replies to threads that I have commented on >>> Notify me when I am +mentioned in a comment >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Gregg >>> -------------------------------------------------------- >>> Gregg Vanderheiden Ph.D. >>> Director Trace R&D Center >>> Professor Industrial & Systems Engineering >>> and Biomedical Engineering University of Wisconsin-Madison >>> Technical Director - Cloud4all Project - http://Cloud4all.info >>> Co-Director, Raising the Floor - International - http://Raisingthefloor.org >>> and the Global Public Inclusive Infrastructure Project - http://GPII.net >>> >>> >> >> -- >> Shadi Abou-Zahra - http://www.w3.org/People/shadi/ >> Activity Lead, W3C/WAI International Program Office >> Evaluation and Repair Tools Working Group (ERT WG) >> Research and Development Working Group (RDWG) >> > > -- Shadi Abou-Zahra - http://www.w3.org/People/shadi/ Activity Lead, W3C/WAI International Program Office Evaluation and Repair Tools Working Group (ERT WG) Research and Development Working Group (RDWG)
Received on Monday, 18 February 2013 08:37:51 UTC