This is a disposition of comments recevied from the Eval TF publication approval survey on the Website Accessibility Conformance Evaluation Methodology (WCAG-EM), Editor Draft 30 July 2012. This page is intended for internal discussion by the WCAG 2.0 Evaluation Methodology Task Force (Eval TF).
| ID | Commenter | Location | Status | Priority | Current Text | Suggested Change | Rationale | Resolution |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Martijn Houtepen (in questionnaire) | 1.4 Terms and Definitions - definition of template | Closed | Mild | Content can be viewed when entered into the template. | Templates are often filled with content, | This can be confusing; are templates something visitors can enter content in? If the relationship between content and template is important: see suggested revision. Otherwise other clarification may be needed. | Resolution: Change as suggested Rationale: Grammar fix |
| 2 | Aurélien Levy (in questionnaire) | 1.1 Scope of this Document - end of first paragraph. | Closed | Low | Add a link to the Accessibility responsibility breakdown of WAI-engage community group | Resolution: Open an issue on "referencing relates resources such as the 'accessibility responsibility breakdown'" for discussion with EOWG Rationale: This document is not stable and not vetted, but there may be other resources and ideas from EOWG |
| ID | Commenter | Location | Status | Priority | Current Text | Suggested Change | Rationale | Resolution |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3 | Kathleen Wahlbin (in questionnaire) | 2.1 Scope of Applicability | Closed | Low | .org | .com | Public websites are mostly .com sites | Resolution: Change "Example Inc." to "Example Org." Rationale: Using ".org" helps indicate that the focus is broader than on commerical websites only |
| ID | Commenter | Location | Status | Priority | Current Text | Suggested Change | Rationale | Resolution |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4 | Detlev Fisher | 3.1.4 Step 1.d: Define the Context of Website Use- Requirement 1.d | Closed | Medium | "...noting that the definition of software support shall not conflict with the WCAG 2.0 guidance on the Level of Assistive Technology Support Needed for Accessibility Support." |
The term "software support" is undefined |
Resolution: Change text to: "...noting this definition shall not conflict with the WCAG 2.0 guidance on the Level of Assistive Technology Support Needed for Accessibility Support." Rationale: No need to coin new definitions. | |
| 5 | Detlev Fisher | 3.1.4 Step 1.d: Define the Context of Website Use- Requirement 1.d | Closed | Medium | "...noting that the definition of software support shall not conflict with the WCAG 2.0 guidance on the Level of Assistive Technology Support Needed for Accessibility Support." "It is often not feasible for websites to support accessibility on every combination of web browser, assistive technology, and operating system that they run on, nor is it possible to test with every such combination of tools." |
There is a lack of guidance on how to define the minimum set of web browsers and assistive technology |
Resolution: Open an issue on "defining tools support" and with a link to this comment by Detlev Rationale: This issue needs a lot of thought and discussion, and could be one of the refinements in an upcoming draft. |
|
| 6 | Detlev Fisher | 3.1.4 Step 1.d: Define the Context of Website Use- Requirement 1.d | Closed | Medium | "It is often not feasible for websites to support accessibility on every combination of web browser, assistive technology, and operating system that they run on, nor is it possible to test with every such combination of tools." |
the term "tools" is ambiguous |
Resolution: Open an issue to "revise use of the term 'tools'" to discuss further with EOWG Rationale: Unclear if replacing every occurrence of "tools" with "user agents and assistive technologies" in this section will add clarity vs complexity. |
|
| 7 | Detlev Fisher | 3.1.4 Step 1.d: Define the Context of Website Use- Requirement 1.d | Closed | Medium | "It is often not feasible for websites to support accessibility on every combination of web browser, assistive technology, and operating system that they run on, nor is it possible to test with every such combination of tools." |
Suggest a minimum baseline of web browsers |
Resolution: No change for now. Rationale: This is not applicable to all evaluation contexts but maybe the guidance from comment ID5 could partially address this comment. |
|
| 8 | Detlev Fisher | 3.1.4 Step 1.d: Define the Context of Website Use- Requirement 1.d | Closed | Medium | "...noting that the definition of software support shall not conflict with the WCAG 2.0 guidance on the Level of Assistive Technology Support Needed for Accessibility Support." "It is often not feasible for websites to support accessibility on every combination of web browser, assistive technology, and operating system that they run on, nor is it possible to test with every such combination of tools." |
Require that the defined set of assistive technology are used comprehensively throughout the evaluation |
Resolution: No change. Rationale: This is emphasized in the third paragraph of this section and in the first of section 3.4.1 |
|
| 9a | Richard Warren and Kerstin Probiesch (in questionnaire) |
3.1.5 Step 1.e: Define the Techniques to be Used (Optional) | Closed | High | Entire section | This section requires completely rewriting to make it clear we are talking about the evaluation techniques not the web-design techniques. | This heading suggests that I will find information about the techniques that the evaluator expects to use during his/her evaluation. (I.E –robots to evaluate HTML and CSS code, toolbar to evaluate semantic structure on a page-by-page basis, screen-reader to confirm that audio output matches visual output. Etc..). Instead I find reference to the recommended techniques that a developer should use to build a compliant site.. At this stage of the evaluation process we have not even explored the site – so there is no way of knowing which "recommended techniques" have been used. Also remove the link to WCAG 2.0 Techniques. |
Resolution: Link the first occurrence of the term "techniques" to http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/intro.html#introduction-layers-techs-head, to clarify what is meant by this term. Rationale: There seems to be a confusion about the meaning of the term "techniques". The concept of "techniques" in WCAG 2.0 applies for evaluators and developers - they are ways for checking the complaince to Success Criteria. |
| 9b | Richard Warren and Kerstin Probiesch (in questionnaire) |
3.1.5 Step 1.e: Define the Techniques to be Used (Optional) | Closed | High | Entire section | Describe the various tools and techniques that will be employed when conducting this evaluation. | This heading suggests that I will find information about the techniques that the evaluator expects to use during his/her evaluation. (I.E –robots to evaluate HTML and CSS code, toolbar to evaluate semantic structure on a page-by-page basis, screen-reader to confirm that audio output matches visual output. Etc..). Instead I find reference to the recommended techniques that a developer should use to build a compliant site.. At this stage of the evaluation process we have not even explored the site – so there is no way of knowing which "recommended techniques" have been used. Also remove the link to WCAG 2.0 Techniques. |
Resolution: No change. Rationale: Listing individual tools limits the applicability of the methodology in different situations (e.g. different languages) and adds dependencies that make it difficult to maintain. |
| 9c | Richard Warren and Kerstin Probiesch (in questionnaire) |
3.1.5 Step 1.e: Define the Techniques to be Used (Optional) | Closed | High | Entire section | This section [...] should not be optional. | This heading suggests that I will find information about the techniques that the evaluator expects to use during his/her evaluation. (I.E –robots to evaluate HTML and CSS code, toolbar to evaluate semantic structure on a page-by-page basis, screen-reader to confirm that audio output matches visual output. Etc..). Instead I find reference to the recommended techniques that a developer should use to build a compliant site.. At this stage of the evaluation process we have not even explored the site – so there is no way of knowing which "recommended techniques" have been used. Also remove the link to WCAG 2.0 Techniques. |
Resolution: No change. Rationale: The concept of "techniques" in WCAG 2.0 are non-exclusive and thus non-normative - the compliance applies to the Success Criteria. |
| 10 | Kathleen Wahlbin (in questionnaire) | 3.1.5 Step 1.e: Define the Techniques to be Used (Optional) | Closed | Medium | Add information about sufficient vs advisory techniques | This is an area that is confusing for people. Advisory techniques may not be fully supported by AT and should be noted in this section. If they are used, we should note that evaluators should make sure that they work with the web browsers and AT selected in step 3.1.4 Step 1d | Resolution: Add "Note: Advisory techniques may not be fully supported by Assistive Technology. If they are used, make sure that these work with the web browsers and Assistive Technology selected in step 3.1.4 Step 1.d" in this section or in section 3.4.2 Step 4.b Rationale: This may be more applicable to the actual evaluation stage though some mention here may be useful too. |
|
| 11a | Richard Warren (in questionnaire) | 3.2 Step 2: Explore the Target Website | Closed | High | Separate 1st paraghraph into two | The second and third sentence in the first paragraph of the introduction are helpful suggestions and not related directly to the first sentence or the main purpose of this step. Therefore they should form a new paragraph. | Resolution: Change as suggested Rationale: The paragraph makes two distinct points | |
| 11b | Richard Warren (in questionnaire) | 3.2 Step 2: Explore the Target Website | Closed | High | Add "purpose" to the first sentence | This first exploration of the website should also check/confirm the *purpose* of the site. This is the only time the evaluator will get a "first impression" so the word purpose (or similar) should be included [...] | Resolution: Change as suggested Rationale: The purpose of the website should indeed be confirmed in this step | |
| 11c | Richard Warren (in questionnaire) | 3.2 Step 2: Explore the Target Website | Closed | High | Remove "as candidates for selection in the sampling step defined in 3.3 Step 3: Select a Representative Sample" from the end of the 1st paragraph | We agreed that the default position is to evaluate every page of the website as this is the only way to be 100% sure of the reliability of our result [...] | Resolution: Change to "for more detailed evaluation later on" Rationale: Not crucial to relate this aspect to sampling Also see commment ID14 |
|
| 12 | Martijn Houtepen (in questionnaire) | 3.2 Step 2: Explore the Target Website | Closed | Editorial | Carrying out initial cursory checks during this stage already helps identify web pages that are relevant for more detailed evaluation later on. | Carrying out initial cursory checks during this stage helps identify web pages that are relevant for more detailed evaluation later on. | The word 'already' seems superfluous | Resolution: Change as suggested Rationale: The word 'already' is superfluous |
| 13a | 3.2.1 Step 2.a: Identify Key Web Pages of the Website - Requirement 2.a | Closed | Medium | Entire section, possibly also other sections such as 3.3.1 Step 3.a | Remove references to "template" | I do not see why separating the template from the instance of the template would make sense [...] Most SC would need to be evaluated not in a 'dry run' but as instantiated web page [...] | Resolution: Change as suggested in this and other sections where applicable, and add a note on identifying templates as an additional, optional part the sample Rationale: Currently the emphasis on "templates" seems too strong |
|
| 13b |
Kathleen Wahlbin (in questionnaire) |
3.2.1 Step 2.a: Identify Key Web Pages of the Website - Requirement 2.a | Closed | Medium | Entire section, possibly also other sections such as 3.3.1 Step 3.a | Add "page states" | I have added 'page states' as important parts of the sample [...] Page states is just as important as common webpages and templates | Resolution: Add "including the states of a web page" with a link to the section on web applications where relevant Rationale: Important reminder that "web pages" includes each of its states |
| 14 | Richard Warren, Kerstin Probiesch, and Kathleen Wahlbin (in questionnaire) | 3.3 Step 3: Select a Representative Sample | Closed | High | This section should be optional and requires an introductory paragraph to explain why sampling might be required. | We have discussed this at length and agreed that a full audit (every page) should be the default position. Sampling should only be used if the site is large and resources are limited. If sampling is used it must be stated in the conformance claim. | Resolution: Add a paragraph like "While ideally every web page of a website is evaluated, usually this is not possible on most websites. In cases where all web pages can be evaluated, this sampling procedure can be skipped and the selected sample is considered to be the entire website in the remaining steps." Rationale: Reiterate what is already explained in the section on small websites See also commment ID11c |
|
| 17 |
Kathleen Wahlbin (in questionnaire) |
3.3.2 Step 3.b: Include Exemplar Instances of Web Pages - Requirement 3b | Closed | Medium | Requirement 3.b: At least two distinct web pages (where applicable) of each (1) key functionality, (2) content, design, and functionality, and (3) web technologies shall be part of the selected sample of web pages. | I would drop the requirement to have two distinct pages if what is meant is necessarily have two instances of page based on the same template. Instead I would put more emphasis than currently in evidence on exploring (and selecting, documenting) different *page states* (expanded menus, light boxes, tab panels, inserted error handling messages, etc) | One page per feature may be fine if the pages are nearly identical in structure and content. I believe that it must be down to the site exploration and the actual variation found whether one, two or more pages should be selected. Following this rule strictly it would greatly increase the number of pages in the sample (and in turn, effort) often with only marginal benefits. | Resolution: Open an issue to "Discuss number of webpages for requirement 3.b", and ask specifically for comments on this section when we publish the draft for public comments Rationale: This issue requires more thought and discussion |
| 18 | Detlev Fisher | 3.3.4 Step 3.d: Include Complete Processes in the Sample | Closed | High | Requirement 3.d: All web pages that are part of a complete process shall be included. The selected sample must include all web pages that belong to a series of web pages presenting a complete process. Also, no web page in the selected sample may be part of a process without all other web pages that are part of that process to be also included into the selected sample. | Add a note: "Note: Including all pages of a process in the selected sample is not necessary when process steps are repetitive and based on the same template. For example, an online questionnaire may lead the user through dozens of multiple choice questions, each containing four radio buttons and based on the same template. In such case, including one of these pages in the selected sample would be sufficient." | Evaluating many near-identical process pages would be a waste of time. | Resolution: No Change Resolution: To know this, it is necessary to do evaluation. Repetition is already covered in the Note in section 3.4 Step 4. |
| 19 | Richard Warren and Kerstin Probiesch (in questionnaire) |
3.4 Step 4: Audit the Selected Sample | Closed | High | Audit the Selected Sample | Title should read 'Audit the site or the selected sample'. Change also every reference to this section in other sections. | We agreed that full audits were the default position | Resolution: No change Rationale: Several places throughout the document explain that the sample can be the entire website (see resolution for comment ID14). The suggested change to the title adds considerable complexity for fairly few situations. |
| 20 | Detlev Fisher | 3.4 Step 4: Audit the Selected Sample - Note | Closed | High | Note at the end of the section | All SC should be rated for all pages in the selected sample. Comments may be included just once and referenced from other places having the same issue. | I would argue that the assessment of WCAG SC should be carried out for each page in the sample [...] | Resolution: No change Rationale: 3.4 Step 4 already states: "WCAG 2.0 defines five conformance requirements that need to be met for each web page in the sample [...] This includes checking whether each WCAG 2.0 Success Criterion in the target conformance level [...] has been met or not met for each of these web pages" |
| 21 | Richard Warren (in questionnaire) | 3.4 Step 4: Audit the Selected Sample - The penultimate sentence of the Note: for step 4 | Closed | High | evaluator may not need to continue to identify successes and failures in meeting the conformance target for each web page. | Change to add phrase "repetitive elements" and read as follows: "evaluator may not need to continue to identify successes and failures in meeting the conformance target for these repetitive elements on every web page." | The note refers to repetitive content. At present this sentence reads "evaluator may not need to continue to identify successes and failures in meeting the conformance target for each web page." This is a little ambiguous and could be taken to include none-repetitive content. | Resolution: Change as suggested Rationale: Clarifies the intended meaning |
| 22 | Aurélien Levy (in questionnaire) |
3.4 Step 4a: Check for the Broadest Variety of Use Cases - Requirement 4.a, Note 1 | Closed | High | Note: According to WCAG 2.0, Success Criteria that do not apply to the content are deemed to have been met. | Note: While according to WCAG 2.0, Success Criteria that do not apply to the content are deemed to be satisfied, evaluators are free to set those Success Criteria to 'not applicable' since this differentiation can be highly meaningful for clients and other users of the evalution results. | Whether WCAG-EM should include 'not applicable' as rating option has been discussed at length in a previous EVAL-TF teleconference and I remember there was a sound majority in favour of it. | Previous resolution: Change note to read "Note: According to WCAG 2.0, Success Criteria that do not apply to the content are deemed to have been satisfied. An outcome such as 'Not Applicable' may be used to denote the particular situation where Success Criteria were satisfied because no relevant content was applicable", and add link to the definition of "satisfy" in WCAG2.0 Updated resolution: Further refine the note in response to WCAG WG Comment #19 to read "Note: According to WCAG 2.0, Success Criteria to which there is no matching content are deemed to have been satisfied. An outcome such as 'Not Applicable' may be used to denote the particular situation where Success Criteria were satisfied because no relevant content was applicable", and add link to the definition of "satisfy" in WCAG2.0 Rationale: Clarifies the use of terms such as 'Not Applicable' |
| 24 | Detlev Fisher | 3.4 Step 4a: Check for the Broadest Variety of Use Cases - Requirement 4.a, Note 2 | Closed | Medium | Second Note (at the end of the section) | "Many websites are based on templates. Evaluating one page based on a particular template can identify accessibility issues pertinent also to other pages based on the same template. When evaluating further pages based on the same template and the same template issue is found, Success Criteria ratings and comments may simply refer to other pages in the sample where the issue has already been covered." | I do not see how one would evaluate the template on its own, instead of a particular instance with all content rendered as web page. Therefore I find the whole paragraph rather confusing. The point included in my suggested revision is different: cut out repetition if some issue has already been explained on another page in the sample. | Resolution: Change note to "Templates are often used to create many web pages, sometimes entire parts a website. While evaluating templates is optional in this methodology, in some contexts it can be helpful to check templates on their own. Evaluating templates may identify potential issues that may not be easily identified through evaluating individual instances of web pages. However, issues identified in templates alone do not necessarily imply that these issues occur on the website and need to be validated on individual instances of web pages. Also, identifying no issues in templates does not necessarily imply that no issues occur on on individual instances of web pages" Rationale: Some of the previous references to templates are removed per comment ID13a, so that this note may become more valuable. Evaluating templates on their own helps understand how a website is contructed and identify potential issues that are not easy to identify otherwise. See discussion thread on "templates" and Minutes from 30 August Telco for change from "usually" to "often" in the resolution |
| 25 | Kerstin Probiesch and Aurélien Levy (in questionnaire) |
3.4.2 Step 4.b: Use WCAG 2.0 Techniques Where Possible | Closed | High | Use WCAG 2.0 Techniques Where Possible | Use WCAG 2.0 Techniques test procedure Where Possible (optional) | As 3.1.5 Step 1.e is optional this step must be optional too. Furthermore without making it optional some of current wcag evaluation methodology such as Accessiweb, RGAA, UWEM,etc will fail to conform to WCAG-EM | Resolution: Add "(Optional)" to the current title Rationale: It is understood that the use of techniques is optional |
| 26 | Richard Warren (in questionnaire) | 3.4.2 Step 4.b: Use WCAG 2.0 Techniques Where Possible- Requirement 4.b | Closed | High | Requirement 4.b: "Where possible, WCAG 2.0 techniques shall be used to demonstrate successes and failures in meeting the WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria relevant per 3.1.3 Step 1.c: Define the Conformance Target." | Requirement 4.b: "Where the correct use of appropriate WCAG 2.0 techniques can be identified they can be used to demonstrate successes in meeting the WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria." | It is still not clear that if the evaluator can identify the correct use of WCAG techniques then these can be used by the evaluator as evidence of compliance. I suggest that the wording be changed. This means that the evaluator can confirm compliance if the appropriate technique has been correctly applied without having to do any other test. For example: if the label element has been applied to enclose both the field instruction and the input field then there is no need to check manually if the form progresses properly when using the keyboard or can work in forms mode with a screen reader. | Resolution: Change to "Where possible, applicable WCAG 2.0 techniques shall be used to demonstrate successes and failures [...]" Rationale: "Common Failure" techniques can also be used to demonstrate *not* met Success Criteria |
| 27 | Kerstin Probiesch (in questionnaire) | 3.4.2 Step 4.b: Use WCAG 2.0 Techniques Where Possible- Requirement 4b | Closed | High | Requirement 4.b: Where possible, WCAG 2.0 techniques shall be used to demonstrate successes and failures in meeting the WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria relevant per 3.1.3 Step 1.c: Define the Conformance Target. | This sentence is contrary to what is said in the techniques-intro of WCAG 2.0: "Test procedures do not, however, imply success or failure beyond the particular technique. In particular, test procedures for individual techniques should not be taken as test procedures for the WCAG 2.0 success criteria overall. " | Resolution: No change Rationale: A single technique may not necessarily *imply* success or failure. However, techniques in general (plural) help *demonstrate* conformance (or failure) |
|
| 28 | Kerstin Probiesch (in questionnaire) | 3.4.2 Step 4.b: Use WCAG 2.0 Techniques Where Possible- Requirement 4b | Closed | High | In this case the evaluator must determine whether the WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria are met without the use of techniques. | Rewrite the sentence and the section and make it optional. | The sentence is unclear. Reason: there is no way to build a web page without using techniques. | Previous resolution: Change to "In this case the evaluator must determine whether the WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria are met without the use of documented techniques." Previous rationale: Clarifies that we are refering to a particular use of the term 'techniques' (as per WCAG 2.0) Updated resolution: Comment addressed per changes in response to Comment #29 Updated rationale: The entire section has been rewritten so that particular comments is no longer applicable; however, the rationale of the comment has been principally accepted and integrated into the rewrite for the section |
| 29 | Detlev Fisher | 3.4.2 Step 4.b: Use WCAG 2.0 Techniques Where Possible- Requirement 4b, first bullet point | Closed | Medium | Second paragraph, including bullet list | Complete rewording provided in the comment | Several rationale provided in the comment | Resolution: We added an editor note with brief description of what we are looking for to step 1e to ask for public review on this section and open an issue to discuss this issue further after publication. Note: See suggestion for editorial improvements to 3.1.5 Step 1.e and 3.4.2 Step 4.b Rationale: Comments mostly accepted but wording such as "evidence" have not been directly adopted as proposed. See for final decision: EvalTF minutes of 30 August 2012 |
| 30 | Detlev Fisher | 3.4.2 Step 4.b: Use WCAG 2.0 Techniques Where Possible- Requirement 4b, end of last but one paragraph | Closed | Mild | Otherwise it is good practice (for efficacy and justifiability) to use existing techniques to demonstrate successes and failures in meeting WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria. | Delete the sentence. | This is in substance a repetition of the intitial statement that (WCAG Techniques) "..provide an effective way of demonstrating whether WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria are met or not met." 'Justifiability' seems the wrong term - what is meant is that refering to the success or failure of using a WCAG Technique (established through its test) provides evidence for the conformance judgement of the evaluator. Also not sure whether referring to the matching WCAG Technique makes anything more 'efficacious' [...] | Resolution: Removed as suggested Rationale: Agreement with the rationale provided Note: See also the changes to this sectuib in response to Comment #29 |
| 31 | Richard Warren (in questionnaire) | 3.4.3 Step 4.c: Assess Accessibility Support for Technologies - Requirement 4c | Closed | High | Each use of the web technologies used to create the web page content shall be checked to be accessibility supported by the tools defined in Step 1.d:. | Change word 'create' to 'present' in the requirement statement as follows: "Requirement 4.c: Each use of the web technologies used to present the web page content shall be checked to be accessibility supported by the tools defined in Step 1.d:". | We are not evaluating the tools etc used to create the site (e.g Dreamweaver, Joomla, Websphere etc). We are checking the technologies used to deliver the content to the user. For example if scripts are used to display content such as warnings (and we have note specified in step 1d that all users will have scripting enabled) will the content still display if scripting is not enabled ? | Resolution: Changed as suggested Rationale: Clarifies the intended meaning |
| 32 | Aurélien Levy (in questionnaire) | 3.5.2 Step 5.b: Provide an Accessibility Statement (Optional) | Closed | High | The website owner commits to removing any valid issues known to them within 10 business days; | The website owner commits to give feedback on any valid issues known to them within 5 business days; This feedback should containt a detailed planning of remediation or an alternative way to get access to the information | Why 10 days? In some situations it can take longer to get something fixed on some big corporate or ministerial website. | Resolution: Changed to "The website owner commits to ensuring the accuracy and validity of the accessibility statement"; See current discussion thread on "accessibility statements". Also: Changed Accessibility Statement (Optional)" to " Provide an Accessibility Evaluation Statement @@@ According to this Methodology (Optional)" in 4 september 2012 Editor Draft. Rationale: Remediation action is beyond the scope of an evaluation methodology |
| ID | Commenter | Location | Status | Priority | Current Text | Suggested Change | Rationale | Resolution |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 33 | Richard Warren (in questionnaire) | 4.4 Large-Scale Evaluation of Multiple Websites | Closed | High | This methodology is not limited to automated evaluation, which can only evaluate a small portion of the accessibility requirements, and requires manual evaluation by experts. | Change to the following: This methodology can not be undertaken using just automated evaluation, which can only evaluate a small portion of the accessibility requirements, it also requires manual evaluation by experts. | The current sentence is ambiguous. | Resolution: Change as suggested Rationale: Clarifies intended meaning |
| ID | Commenter | Location | Status | Priority | Current Text | Suggested Change | Rationale | Resolution |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 34 | Kerstin Probiesch (in questionnaire) | Different Sections | Closed | High | In different sections of the WD we have the following: " However, the evaluator is responsible for an objective and thorough assessment." | This point needs further discussion and the WD needs a section for this issue. | Of course the evaluator is responsible but also the methodology itself is responsible for ensure objectivity. | Resolution: Open issue to discuss "how to better address objectivity and equivalent results in the WCAG-EM" Rationale: Issue needs further thought and discussion |
| 35 | Kerstin Probiesch (in questionnaire) | Closed | High | In the WD stands, that it is a "standardized methodology". | Suggestion: Include goodness criteria like objectivity and reliability. | As long as we don't have specific techniques for goodness criteria, I think we shouldn't speak about "standardized". | Resolution: Same as comment ID34 Rationale: Issue needs further thought and discussion |