- From: Shawn Henry <shawn@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2019 10:50:15 -0500
- To: "Offenstein, Tim" <timo@illinois.edu>
- Cc: "wai-eo-editors@w3.org" <wai-eo-editors@w3.org>, Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
Dear Tim, Thank you very much for taking the time to send in these suggestions. It is helpful to get your perspective. We plan to update this page [1] in the coming months and will take all of these into careful consideration. We will also be updating: WCAG-EM Report Tool: Website Accessibility Evaluation Report Generator https://www.w3.org/WAI/eval/report-tool/#/ (The report it generates [2] includes each success criteria.) Best regards, ~Shawn <http://www.w3.org/People/Shawn/> [1] Template for Accessibility Evaluation Reports https://www.w3.org/WAI/test-evaluate/report-template/ [2] Website Accessibility Evaluation Report https://www.w3.org/WAI/eval/report-tool/#/view_report On 8/4/2019 10:20 PM, Offenstein, Tim wrote: > Thank you for a great template for accessibility evaluation. Here are a few suggestions. > > 1. Section 1 references WCAG 2.1 Level AA. However, the first bullet in Section 6 goes beyond this by referencing, Levels A, AA, and AAA. Level AAA conformance is not required by Department of Justice or Office of Civil Rights complaints, so it is not typically tested for. Also, WCAG 2.0 states, “It is not recommended that Level AAA conformance be required as a general policy for entire sites because it is not possible to satisfy all Level AAA Success Criteria for some content.” > 2. Recommend referencing both WCAG 2.0 and 2.1. WCAG 2.0 is currently the only required basis of DoJ and OCR complaints, not 2.1. WCAG 2.1 is an extension of 2.0, not the summation of the entire current WCAG. > 3. Section 6 - Results and Recommended Actions should be numbered/sub-numbered rather than using bullets. Every finding should be uniquely identified by a reference number to make reporting and remediation easier to discuss and track. > 4. Recommend dividing Section 6 into, (1) a validation check with the W3C Validator <https://validator.w3.org/>, (2) an automated tool check, and (3) a manual check. A heuristic usability evaluation is also a nice addition but shouldn’t be required. > 5. It’s helpful to reference the specific success criteria from WCAG for each finding. Linking to the “Understanding” reference for each referenced SC helps the client understand why the issue is important and may offer potential remedies. > 6. An accessibility review should also have a brief Disclaimer section that recommends iterative evaluation and protects the reviewer. Accessibility issues might be missed and remediation may introduce new issues. > > Thanks for the opportunity to comment on your template. > > -Tim > > /***********************/ > > /Tim Offenstein, M.S.L.I.S., CPWA/ > > /Campus Accessibility Liaison/ > > /Technology Services at Illinois/ > > /University of Illinois/ > > /1304 W. Springfield Ave./ > > /Urbana, IL 61801/ > > /217-244-2700/ >
Received on Monday, 5 August 2019 15:50:21 UTC