W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > wai-eo-editors@w3.org > February 2015

Re: [wbs] response to 'WCAG-EM Report Tool v1.0/beta Publication Review'

From: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 17:42:54 +0100
Message-ID: <54EF4D0E.2090808@w3.org>
To: hkramer@colorado.edu
CC: shawn@w3.org, Wilco Fiers <w.fiers@accessibility.nl>, wai-eo-editors <wai-eo-editors@w3.org>
[resending to archived list to refer to]

Hi Howard,

Thank you for your valuable feedback. Find below some notes about how we 
propose your comments to be addressed. Let us know if you have any 
comments or suggestions on these proposed resolutions.


On 26.2.2015 00:15, Howard Kramer via WBS Mailer wrote:
> The following answers have been successfully submitted to 'WCAG-EM Report
> Tool v1.0/beta Publication Review' (Education and Outreach Working Group)
> for Howard Kramer.
>
>>
>> ---------------------------------
>> Comments and publication approval
>> ----
>>
>>
>
>   * ( ) I support publishing this version of the tool as it is
>   * (x) I support publishing this version of the tool; however, I suggest
> the changes in the comments section below (for editors' discretion or a
> later version) 	
>   * ( ) I support publishing this version of the tool only with the changes
> in the comment section below
>   * ( ) I do not support publishing this version of the tool, because of the
> comments in the comments section below
>   * ( ) I abstain (not vote)
>
> priority: editor's discretion
> location: Start > how this tool works > first bullet point
> current wording: "any unsaved data would be lost."
> suggested revision: "any unsaved data will be lost."
> rationale: not grammatically correct ("would" is past tense of "will")

Changed sentence to: "When you close your web browser window, any 
unsaved data is lost."


> priority: editor's discretion
> location: Define Scope > Accessibility Support Baseline info text
> current functionality: all the links within the help section open up a new
> tab without any cueing - shouldn't this be indicated or announced?
> rationale: best practice to inform user

To avoid repetitive "opens in new window" all over (there are many 
links!), we added this sentence to "How this tool works" on the start 
page: "Links that are not part of the navigation or functionality (links 
to external resources) open in a new web browser windows."


> priority: editor's discretion
> location: Define Scope > Accessibility Support Baseline
> current functionality: no examples
> rationale: I still think examples would help in these types of fields

Added "For example, 'Internet Explorer (IE) with JAWS', 'FireFox with 
NVDA', and 'Apple with VoiceOver' could be basic definitions."


> priority: editor's discretion
> location: Explore the target website > Specification Address (URL)
> current functionality: was thrown by this - I entered the address of my web
> pages with the associated functionality. Maybe an "i" for info on what this
> url is for - now I realize it's a link to the specification for that
> technology but right now I'm not sure how I would use it.

For now, added this sentence to the existing "i" (info box): "Use the 
'Specification Address (URL)' field to identify the web technology 
specification." - we will look further into this during usability 
testing planned for May.


> priority: editor's discretion
> location: Explore the target website
> just a question: what about technologies such as jQuery, WordPress, Drupal?

There is a note about this in section 2.d of WCAG-EM, which is linked 
from the "i" (info box):
  - http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-EM/#step2d

In brief: yes, you can add these if you (as an evaluator) identify them, 
and if they are relevant to the evaluation results.


> Sorry - I've run out of time at this point. Will complete the rest of the
> sections if I can.

These comments have been very helpful, thank you.

Regards,
   Shadi


>> ---------------------------------
>> Version 1.0 or Beta?
>> ----
>> Should we call this Version 1.0 or Beta? Probably if we don't expect
>> major issues, we want to call it Version 1. However, we might want to be
>> conservative and called it Beta. Please include comments to explain your
>> perspective.
>>
>>
>
>   * ( ) Call it Version 1.0 - I feel strongly
>   * ( ) Call it Version 1.0 - I feel mildly
>   * (x) Not sure
>   * ( ) Call it Beta - I feel mildly
>   * ( ) Call it Beta - I feel strongly
> Comments:
>
>
>>
>> These answers were last modified on 25 February 2015 at 23:12:57 U.T.C.
>> by Howard Kramer
>>
> Answers to this questionnaire can be set and changed at
> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35532/WeRTv1-approval2/ until 2015-02-25.
>
>   Regards,
>
>   The Automatic WBS Mailer
>
>

-- 
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 Thursday, 26 February 2015 16:43:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 23 June 2020 20:41:46 UTC