This is a disposition of comments received on the Website Accessibility Conformance Evaluation Methodology (WCAG-EM), Editor Draft 8 February 2013. This page is intended for internal discussion by the WCAG 2.0 Evaluation Methodology Task Force (Eval TF), and for publication approval by Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group (WCAG WG) and Evaluation and Repair Tools Working Group (ERT WG).
| ID | Status | Commenter | Location | Current text | Suggested Change | Rationale | Resolution |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Comment 1 | Open | Samuel Martín (ERT WG) | Terms and Definitions | Common Functionality | Essential Functionality | Better matches WCAG 2.0 terminology and better differentiates between the term "common web pages" | Add a review note to get more public input and address in the next draft |
| Comment 2 | Closed | Maureen Kraft (WCAG WG) | Throughout | Styling for terms and definitions | Use styling from other WCAG 2.0 documents | More consistency | Done |
| Comment 3 | Closed | Maureen Kraft (WCAG WG) | Scope of Applicability | Image: "Medicine Courses" | "Medical Courses" or "Courses in Medicine" | Better grammar | Done |
| Comment 4 | Closed | Samuel Martín (ERT WG) | Step 5.c: Provide a Performance Score (Optional) | Scoring is based on total number of Success Criteria in the evaluation scope | Use only total number of *applicable* Success Criteria in the evaluation scope | Less skew of results through counting Success Criteria that are not applicable | Add a review note to get more public input and address in the next draft |
| Comment 5 | Closed | Samuel Martín (ERT WG) | Step 5.c: Provide a Performance Score (Optional) | Current wording of "Per Instance", Point #2 | Adjust to account for couting of applicable Success Criteria only | Needs adjustment if comment 4 is implemented | Closed until a decision is made on comment 4 |
| Comment 6 | Closed | Samuel Martín (ERT WG) | Step 5.c: Provide a Performance Score (Optional) | "The following scoring approaches may be used" | Clarify if these are the only scoring approaches provided | Unclear what the methodology requirements are | Changed to "Currently the following scoring approaches are provided by this methodology" |
| Comment 7 | Closed | Samuel Martín (ERT WG) | Re-Running a Website Conformance Evaluation | Entire paragraph | Complete rewriting | Meaning is unclear | Changed as proposed |
| Comment 8 | Closed | Peter Korn (WCAG WG) | Introduction | "with reasonable confidence" | Remove or change | Statement isn't fully supported | Sentences in which this phrase occurs have been rewritten (also in the abstract) |
| Comment 9 | Closed | Andrew Kirkpatrick (WCAG WG) | Introduction | "a way to evaluate" | Add "(but not necessarily the only way)" | Further clarify that it is not the only way | Changed to "one possible approach" (also in the abstract) |
| Comment 10 | Closed | David McDonald (WCAG WG) | Website with Separable Areas | Response to public comment #25 | Comment still stands | Not adequately addressed | Add a review note to get more public input and address in the next draft |
| Comment 11 | Closed | Peter Korn (WCAG WG) | Using This Methodology | "[...] this document is used for COMPREHENSIVELY assessing the conformance [...]" | Remove or change | Statement isn't fully supported | Changed to "[...] this document is used for evaluating the conformance [...]" |
| Comment 12 | Closed | Andrew Kirkpatrick (WCAG WG) | Using This Methodology | "[...] this document is used for COMPREHENSIVELY assessing the conformance [...]" | Remove or change | Seems to contradict Scope of This Document | Changed to "[...] this document is used for evaluating the conformance [...]" (see also comment #11) |
| Comment 13 | Closed | Peter Korn (WCAG WG) | Scope of Applicability | Last note on "partial conformance" -- "In some cases this means that THE WEBSITE AS A WHOLE DOES NOT CONFORM WITH WCAG 2.0 due to partially conforming web pages." | There are many reasons why such a statement cannot be made | Note has been slightly edited for clarity and further discussion after publication | |
| Comment 14 | Closed | Loretta Guarino Reid (WCAG WG) | Conformance Evaluation Procedure | Throughout -- use of the term "WCAG 2.0 Techniques" | Sometimes unclear if it means techniques document by WCAG WG or others | Made edits to step 1.d, step 4.b, and step 4.c | |
| Comment 15 | Closed | Peter Korn (WCAG WG) | Conformance Evaluation Procedure | Throughout the section | Recognize the potential for subjectivity and do real-world testing of the proposed methodology | Language too definitive in several areas | Real-world testing is planned for the upcoming publication, after which these sections will be refined accordingly |
| Comment 16 | Closed | Kerstin Probiesch (WCAG WG) | Conformance Evaluation Procedure | step 1.d and step 4.c | Remove | Some countries may make these non-optional | WCAG WG will refine its guidance on techniques and failures, including technical and policy guidance |
| Comment 17 | Closed | Peter Korn (WCAG WG) | Appendix C: Example Reports | Throughout the section | Align with the adjustments to be done according to comment #15 | Better differentiate between evaluation findings and conformance claims | Issue raised for further discussion and refinement in future drafts |