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

From Education & Outreach
Revision as of 21:02, 13 February 2014 by Vmenezes (Talk | contribs)

Jump to: navigation, search

Nav: EOWG wiki main page


EOWG review reminder:

  • See Notes under Technical Document Review for info on reviewing and commenting.
  • EOWG will focus on the types of questions below under [Comments submitted on 22 October 2012]. If you have comments on specific technical points in the document, you can submit them directly yourself -- that is, e-mail them to 22
    If you're not sure, feel free to put your comments here and the Group will decide if they are ones you should send yourself.

Comments on 30 January 2014 Draft

  • [Question for EOWG] Location: "Terms and definitions", Web page states. This definition seems to be very jargony to me. What is your opinion on its 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}
  • [Question for EOWG]: Quoting document titles or displaying them in a certain way so that they can be better identified.
    The document links to many ressources. 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}
  • [Question for EOWG english native speakers] Sometimes the text is difficult to read because of missing commas, to be confirmed. Examples: "Involving people with disabilities including people with aging-related impairments helps identify additional accessibility barriers that are not easily discovered by expert evaluation alone."
    "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." {Sylvie, 10 February}
  • [May be a Word missing, sentence is not clear]: 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." {Sylvie, 10 February}

  • [Question for EOWG] Can we use "Succeed" or "Overtake" instead of the word "Supersede", its difficult to understand for some users{Anthony, 12, February}
  • [Question for EOWG] In Step 2.c:, "Content that are created using different coding styles" should be changed as "Content that is created using different coding styles"{Anthony, 12, February}
  • [Question for EOWG] 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}
  • [Question for EOWG] 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}
  • comment {name}

Comments on the Overview page

WCAG-EM Overview page

  • Should we do more to set expectations that this is an overall approach, rather than detailed procedure to evaluate each SC? {EOWG 31 Jan teleconference}
    If so, please suggest wording:
  • WCAG-EM provides for an overall approach to evaluate web sites rather than a detailed procedure to evaluate each Success Criteria {Vicki - February 13}

    A few comments on the Overview {Vicki - February 13}

    • Introduction: Second paragraph: I would inverse the sentences in order to continue the focus on WCAG-EM
    • last sentence needs to be modified to past tense if it was published as a W3C WG Note in 2013
    • last sentence: is it supposed to be "investing time and resources" or just "investing in"
    • Scope: 3rd paragraph: Simplify the first sentence, remove the extra noise by removing "in related pages of the" so as to read "Other aspects of evaluation are addressed in the Evaluating Web Accessibility resource suite".
    • Second sentence: last part of the sententce. Suggestion: "and evaluate if accessibility solutions are effective by Involving Users in Evaluating Web Accessibility."