Important note: This Wiki page is edited by participants of the EOWG. It does not necessarily represent consensus and it may have incorrect information or information that is not supported by other Working Group participants, WAI, or W3C. It may also have some very useful information.


WCAG-EM review Feb 2014

From Education & Outreach
Jump to: navigation, search
This file [will be] protected (locked for editing) to provide a stable reference.
(EOWG: This is an archive of previous comments. Put new comments in the WCAG-EM review page.)

Submitted Comments

"Web page states"

  • Web page states definition.
    Too vague, jargony, and technically too broad. (“state” is really general – in that definition is a drop down menu a new state as it changes the DOM?) Perhaps "change of context" terminology from WCAG might work?
  • Generally EOWG thinks you should *not* link all terms to their definitions; however, if you leave web page states or use another potentially unclear term that is not a well understood term, we recommend that you do link to the definition for the first use of the term in each section.

Clarity in "Particular Types of Websites", in bullet "Web Applications"

Current wording: "Web applications will typically require more time and effort to evaluate, and larger web page samples to reflect the different types of content, functionality, and processes."

Issue: The sentence is not clear.

Proposed edit: "Web applications will typically require more time and effort to evaluate, and they will need larger web page samples to reflect the different types of content, functionality, and processes."

In Step 2.d:

Current wording: "During this step the web technologies relied upon (for conformance) to provide the website are identified."

Suggested edit: "During this step, the web technologies relied upon for conformance are identified."

Also for that section, consider moving the WCAG link to the first sentence.

Introduction of step 3

Current wording: The purpose of this selection is to ensure that the evaluation results reflect the accessibility performance of the website with reasonable confidence.

Suggested edit: The purpose of this selection is to provide reasonable certainty that the evaluation results reflect the accessibility performance of the website.

Current wording: In cases where it is feasible to evaluate all web pages, this sampling procedure can be skipped and the selected sample is considered to be the entire website in the remaining steps of the conformance evaluation procedure.

Suggested edit: In cases where it is feasible to evaluate all web pages, this sampling procedure can be skipped and the "selected sample" in the remaining steps of the conformance evaluation procedure is the entire website.

In step 3B

Issue: Np clear what the web pages are relevant in : "Include all other web pages and web page states that are relevant to people with disabilities and accessibility of the website into the selected sample."

Suggestion: Consider making those dependencies more clear, and consider reducing such dependencies where possible.

In Purpose of the Methodology

  • Second sentence. Current wording: "Periodic evaluation is also useful for monitoring the accessibility performance of websites over time."
    Suggested edit: "Periodic evaluation is important for monitoring the accessibility performance of websites over time."
  • 5th bullet. Current wording: "Web accessibility monitoring activities who want to benchmark or compare the accessibility conformance over time."
    Suggestion: Change it to be a person to match the others, e.g., "Web accessibility evaluators who want to..."

Links & other sections

Rationale: For many screen reader users, it is difficult to tell where a section title or document title ends when it is in the middle of the sentence. Also, for some sighted users in EOWG, links within sentences decreases readability.

Suggestion: To improve readability, edit so that links to sections and documents are at the end of the sentences, wherever feasible. For example:

  • Change from: Include all common web pages and web page states that were identified in Step 2.a: Identify Common Web Pages of the Website into the selected sample for evaluation.
    To: Include in the selected sample all common web pages and web page states that were identified in Step 2.a: Identify Common Web Pages of the Website.
  • Change from: Involving Users in Web Accessibility Evaluation provides further guidance beyond the scope of this document.
    To: For further guidance beyond the scope of this document, see Involving Users in Web Accessibility Evaluation.

Grammar & Typos

  • Add comma after dependent introductory clauses. For example: "If only a specific website area, such as the "Courseware Application", is defined as the target for evaluation, then all the parts of this area are within the scope of the evaluation." Also commas would be helpful here: "Involving people with disabilities, including people with aging-related impairments, helps identify additional accessibility barriers that are not easily discovered by expert evaluation alone."
  • In Step 2.c:
    • "Content that are created using different coding styles" should be changed as "Content that is created using different coding styles"
    • "Content that change appearance, behavior, and content depending on the user, device, browser, context, and settings;" -> "Content that changes appearance, behavior, and content depending on the user, device, browser, context, and settings;" (third word change->changes)
  • typos:
    • evalaute instead of evaluate.
    • In 5.C: Provide an statement: replace by Provide a statement.
    • In 5C: satisifed instead of satisfied.
    • In 5C: validty instead of validity
    • In 5D: failire instead of failure.
    • Procceses instead of processes.
    • (please do a spell check to look for others)
  • 2nd paragraph under http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-EM/#introduction - remove comma after "This methodology".
  • Methodology under step 2.e - http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-EM/#step2e - methodology "3c" is listed instead of "2.e"
  • ...the grammatical tendency to remove the dangling ends of sentences...? not sure what this is about, maybe Shadi can remember from the minutes of EOWG 28 Feb 2014



{end submitted comments}



[not submitted] archived draft comments and discussion

Most of these were discussed in EOWG 28 Feb 2014.

  • "Web page states "
    • Location: "Terms and definitions", Web page states. This definition seems to be very jargony to me. EOWG: Suggestions for improving understandability?

      Web pages with dynamic content can have different states (changes to the Document Object Model - DOM); for example, they might generate different content and provide different presentation or functionality depending on the particular user and on actions initiated by the user. In the context of this methodology, web page states can be treated as ancillary to web pages (i.e., recorded as an additional state of a web page in a web page sample) or as individual web pages.

      {Sylvie, 10 February}

      • maybe we can request a concrete example? (For instance is an expanded section in 'easy checks' a different 'state' from the loaded page?) They also suggest that the different states can be treated in two different ways - maybe they should have a recommended way? {Andrew, 21 Feb}
        Would be good if could supply our own, but don't have time{Shawn, Feb. 28}
      • “state” is really general – in that definition is a drop down menu a new state as it changes the DOM? {Eric, Feb. 27}
      • Too vague and technically too broad. Perhaps "change of context" terminology from WCAG might work {EO Discussion, Feb. 28}
    • In step 2.a: "Identify Common Web Pages of the Website", I'm not sure I understand what "web page states" is.
      Sentence: "Identify the common web pages, which may be web page states, of the target website."
      I can't remember if it was in the previous version but explanations on this would be appreciated. Same question for web applications further in the text. {Sylvie, 19 February}
      • +1. Is it not possible to make this simpler e.g. "Identiy the common web pages, including sample dynamic web pages, of the target website."{Vicki, 20 February}
      • Proposed comment to Eval TF: Generally EOWG thinks you should *not* link all terms to their definitions; however, since this one is not a well understood term, we recommend that you do link to the definition for the first use of the term in each section. {Shawn}
      • +1 for the link since "web page states" is not clear. {Vicki - 20 Feb.}
      • +1 also for linking "web page states". {Andrew, 21 Feb}
      • +1 also for linking "web page states" - this threw me also{Howard, 26 Feb}
      • +1 for linking – this is really hard to understand otherwise {Eric, Feb. 27}
      • +1 to proposed change to linking from "web page states" {Bim 28 Feb }
      • comment {name}

  • [No comment] Supersede - Can we use "Succeed" or "Overtake" instead of the word "Supersede", its difficult to understand for some users {Anthony, 12, February}
    • It's used in the abstract, first paragraph, last sentence: "This document is one of a series of informative W3C/WAI resources about Evaluating Websites for Accessibility that complements the WCAG 2.0 Documents. It does not define additional WCAG 2.0 requirements nor does it replace or supersede it in any way." I think "supersede" is the proper term here and since it says "replace or superseded" I think it's OK. (It's also in the Status of the Document, which is boilerplate language that we cannot easily change.){shawn}
    • +1 to leave as is {Andrew, 21 Feb}
    • +1 to leave as is {Sylvie, 25 Feb}
    • +1 to leave as is {Howard, 26 Feb}
    • +1 to leave as is {Eric, Feb. 27}
    • +1 to leave as is {Bim 28 Feb}
    • comment {name}

  • [submit wording change but don't submit end-to-end comment] clarity - location : "Particular Types of Websites", in bullet "Web Applications" note: "Web applications will typically require more time and effort to evaluate, and larger web page samples to reflect the different types of content, functionality, and processes." Maybe a word is missing, the sentence is not clear. {Sylvie, 10 February}
    • Can this be fixed by: "Web applications will typically require more time and effort to evaluate, and they will need larger web page samples to reflect the different types of content, functionality, and processes." ? {Shawn}
    • +1 {Vicki - 20 Feb.}
    • Shawn's suggestion is a good suggestion to clarify what they have said, but aren't applications are meant to be tested from end-to-end? (see http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#cc3) {Andrew, 21 Feb}
    • +1 to include that web apps must be tested from end-to-end and that a “larger web page sample” might not be enough {Eric, Feb. 27}
    • +1 for end-to-end evaluation (all functionality plus all supporting pages) of web applications. {Bim, 28 Feb}
    • A Web application can have multiple complete processes - for example, think of webmail client. Complete processes is covered in step 4.b {Shadi, 28 Feb}
    • comment {name}

  • [No comment] In Step 2.c:, "Content that change appearance, behavior," is covered in rest of the points? If so we can remove this part {Anthony, 12, February}
    • I think not necessarily covered in the other bullets and so it's good to leave it there. {Shawn}
    • The bullet is related to others, but different from them as it is specifically about 'states' {Andrew, 21, Feb}
    • +1 to keep {Eric, Feb. 27}
    • comment {name}

  • [submit comment] In Step 2.d:, "During this step the web technologies relied upon (for conformance) to provide the website are identified." is not clear to me {Anthony, 12, February}
    • This is related to WCAG directly. At the end of the paragraph, it says, "The outcome of this step is a list of technologies that are relied upon according to WCAG 2.0." Is that enough of an explanation, given the audience (who will have to understand how WCAG works for conformance), or do we need someting more &/or something at the start of the paragraph? {shawn}
    • +1 to Shawn {Andrew, 21 Feb}
    • In the same section, the second sentence in the Note might be better worded as: "For web applications in particular, much of the accessibility support is built into these libraries and components ..." {Andrew, 21 Feb}
    • +1 to Shawn and Andrew {Eric, Feb. 27}
    • Remove the parentheses. Delete phrase "to provide the website." Consider moving the WCAG link to 1st sentenced {EO Group, Feb. 28}
    • comment {name}

  • [submit comment] Introduction of step 3 seems complicated to me. I have to read each sentence several times to understand. Is there a way to make it more simple? I don't know what to suggest to make this easier to read. {Sylvie, 20 February}
    • I find it to be relatively easy to understand. {Eric, Feb. 27}
    • The purpose of this selection is to ensure that the evaluation results reflect the accessibility performance of the website with reasonable confidence. -> The purpose of this selection is to provide reasonable confidence that the evaluation results reflect the accessibility performance of the website. {EO Group, Feb. 28}
    • Perhaps the term certainty would be better than confidence. That would remove any confusion with the technical meaning of confidence in statistical experiment design. {Wayne Dick, Feb 28}
    • In cases where it is feasible to evaluate all web pages, you can skip this sampling procedure, then the "selected sample" in the remaining steps of the conformance evaluation procedure is the entire website. {EO Group, Feb. 28}
    • comment {name}

  • [submit comment] In step 3B, I am not sure to what the web pages are relevant.
    Include all other web pages and web page states that are relevant to people with disabilities and accessibility of the website into the selected sample.

    {Sylvie, 20 February}

    • Probably they mean pages like an accessibility statement or if you got special ticket prices for people with disabilities. – Seems a little bit redundant to me, as those shouldn’t be more special than other pages on the website. {Eric, Feb. 27}
    • Consider making those dependencies more clear and consider reducing such dependencies where possible {EO Group, Feb. 28}
    • comment {name}

  • [submit comment -- edit with others] Whole step 3: It may be clearer to include concrete examples in each bullet and not in paragraphs following each bullet.
    Example: "Include all common web pages and web page states that were identified in Step 2.a: Identify Common Web Pages of the Website into the selected sample for evaluation."
    has a repetition of web pages, web pages states, web sites. May be give examples of pages that could be included. {Sylvie, 20 February}
    • Too much jargon here, also it would be easier to read if the step title would be in brackets: “Include all common web pages and web page states that were identified in Step 2.a (Identify Common Web Pages of the Website) into the selected sample for evaluation.”

      I wonder if many of those steps could just be summarized with “Include all web pages (and web page states) that were identified in Step 2.a-e.”? {Eric, Feb. 27}
    • throughout: 2) the grammatical tendency to remove the dangling ends of sentences -- @@ "Include all common web pages and web page states that were identified in Step 2.a: Identify Common Web Pages of the Website into the selected sample for evaluation." -> "Include in the selected sample all common web pages and web page states that were identified in Step 2.a: Identify Common Web Pages of the Website." @@ put links -- esp doc names & sections -- at end of sentence

  • Document titles (throughout) - Quoting document titles or displaying them in a certain way so that they can be better identified.
    The document links to many resources. While reading it, it is sometimes difficult to distinguish the document title from the surrounding text. Is there a visual difference to see the document titles? While reading with a screen reader, for example, it is not always evident to identify the single document titles. For example:
    "Involving Users in Web Accessibility Evaluation provides further guidance beyond the scope of this document."

    {Sylvie, 10 February}

    • Visually the underlined link text clearly indicates the document titles (and additionally the capitalization provides a clue). I have wondered about this issue throughout the WAI website. One option would be to put the document titles in italics, but I don't think that would help with screen readers. Another option would be to put quotes around the doc title — but would that help or not given more screen reader common verbosity settings for reading punctuation. What are other options?{Shawn}
    • As we said in EO Feb. 21st, there is little we can do about that… {Eric, Feb. 27}
    • Put them at the end of sentence! {Shawn}

  • [Submit comment] Purpose of this Methodology - second sentence "Periodic evaluation is also useful for monitoring the accessibility performance of websites over time." - Suggest replacing "useful". Rationale: periodic evaluation is more than just useful, it is necessary. Suggested re-wording (removing "also") and use either "important" or "required" or "necessary" so that we gently emphasize that this is not a one-off: "Periodic evaluation is necessary for monitoring the accessibility performance of websites over time". {Vicki - 20 February }
    • Purpose of this Methodology - 5th bullet "Web accessibility monitoring activities who want to benchmark or compare the accessibility conformance over time." - Suggest replacing with "Web accessibility monitoring *entities* who want to benchmark or compare the accessibility conformance over time. Rationale: I'm sure I mentioned this last time - "who" should refer to a person or group of persons, not an activity. {Howard, 26 February }
    • +1 to both changes {Eric, Feb. 27}
    • +1 to both suggestions.{Bim 28 Feb}
    • Vicki's comment - important instead of necessary {EO Group, Feb. 28}
    • Howard's comment - fix it - use a person, e.g. "web a11y evaluators who want to... {EO Group, Feb. 28}
    • comment {name}

  • [pending] Scoring - I have read the part on scoring, but I need to ask around what people think. I may send a separate comment on that issue if I get response. {Sylvie, 20 February}
    • I’m not a fan of such scoring systems as they are only quantitative, not qualitative which may lead to good scores for mediocre websites. {Eric, Feb. 27}