This is a disposition of comments received on Website Accessibility Conformance Evaluation Methodology 1.0, W3C Editors Draft 6 March 2012. This page is intended for internal discussion by the WCAG 2.0 Evaluation Methodology Task Force (Eval TF).
All comments are currently closed.
| ID | Commenter | Location | Nature | Current Text | Suggested Change | Rationale | Resolution |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 48 | Detlev Fischer (supersedes Eval TF Survey) | Section 2.1 | Closed | "the methodology always applies to a full website without exclusions or omissions of website parts" | I find this unneccessarily restrictive. I would scrap this requirement | contradiction to the WCAG section on conformance claims; will severely limit the applicability of the methodology (read more in comments from Detlev Fischer) | Decision to maintain as-is recorded in Eval TF Minutes on 15 March; editor note with pointer to the reporting section has been added |
| 84 | Amy Chen | Section 2.1 | Closed | Would be better to have scope of applicability determined and agreed upon by the evaluator, evaluation commissioner, and website owner. (And not put any information about "guesses" of scope in the evaluation methodology document.) | The "Exception" for "clearly separable areas" is hard to define. For example, would the Berkeley library be a "clearly separable area" from the Berkeley.edu site? If we can't define clearly define examples of scope and exceptions, better to leave it out of the document. | Decision to maintain as-is recorded in Eval TF Minutes on 15 March; clarifications have been added to this section | |
| 45 | Donald Raikes (also in Eval TF Survey) | Section 1.4 and 2.1 | Closed | "website" | Still needs more clarification especially for very large websites | For example: If a university president requests an evaluation of the university website (http://arizona.edu). According to 2.1 all departmental webpages linked to the main Arizona.edu page should be included in the possible sample pages even though the main Arizona webpage is "owned" by the administration and the various departmental webpages are "owned" by the respective departments, but because of the non-exclusion clause which says that you cannot say a site conforms except for this section then even if the library or optical sciences department sub site does nto conform, then the entire university site does not conform. | Clarifications added in section 2.1 and step 1 |
| 82 | Amy Chen | Section 2.1 | Closed | The methodology needs to allow the evaluators to determine | Bad example for "full website without exclusions or omissions of website parts." Difficult for someone outside the organization to determine what is a "full website." | Clarifications added in section 2.1 and step 1 | |
| 85 | Amy Chen | Section 2.1 | Closed | how is "self-enclosed websites" defined? Since Berkeley.edu has a link pointing to the Berkeley library website, does that mean is it not self-enclosed? | Clarifications added in section 2.1 and step 1 | ||
| 83 | Amy Chen | Section 2.1 | Closed | Would be nice to include the definition of "complete processes" in the text of the document instead of just linking the definition, since understanding the definition is key. | Added to section 1.4 | ||
| 46 | Detlev Fischer (supersedes Eval TF Survey) | Section 1 | Closed | "web applications and websites for mobile devices" | Not sure this is beneficial. We don't know what UA will be used to view content. For touch devices, some WCAG criteria are not testable (keyboard functionality). Leave out? (The same applies to section 1.1 Scope of this Document - mention of mobile devices) | See step 1.e regarding context (including User Agents); Disagree with "touch devices ... not testable" statement (see current WAI work on Indie UI) | |
| 91 | Amy Chen | Requirement 2.d | Closed | As the Section 508 refresh merges with WCAG, technologies for creating software applications and other products that might be evaluated using the evaluation methodology may be proprietary and the product may need to be evaluated from what is customer-facing on the front-end. (Informing the evaluator of the technologies might help the evaluator, but it should not affect conformance evaluation.) | Software evaluation is out of scope of this document | ||
| 67 | Samuel Martín | Sections 1.4 and 2.1 | Closed | It is not clear enough if and how a website is different from its traditional meaning (a single web "realm"). As far as I understand, a web page is defined from the user-experience point of view, and so is a "web site" (acknowledging the requirement for "complete processes"). That is, e.g. a mashup of contents extracted from different providers, maybe even retrieved from different hosts at different domains, is a single web page at a single web site, although it is not under control of the web site administrator (that's why partial conformance was created). Besides, even when the user moves from one page to another, a payment gateway page put in an online shopping process, would be part of the same website. Current writing gives some hints for that, but I think it should be more explicitly clarified in the document. | Several clarifications were made (see comments above) |
| ID | Commenter | Location | Nature | Current Text | Suggested Change | Rationale | Resolution |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 63 | Loretta Guarino Reid (in WCAG WG Survey) | Step 4.b | Closed | I fear that people will see this step and believe that they must use the techniques documented in the Techniques document. You were clear earlier that there could be other techniques used. Can we make it as clear as possible, even in this state, that these are the techniques identified in the earlier section of this document? I'm afraid "ideally" will leave people assuming that in the non-ideal case, they are required to use the techniques in our document. | Clarifications added in steps 1.e and 4.b | ||
| 20 | Kerstin Probiesch (1) | Step 1.e and Step 4.b | Closed | move Step 1e: Define the Techniques to be Used (Optional) and the text belonging to this point into somewhere in the Report Section. Guided with an explicit statement, that techniques are not the checkpoints (in Eval TF Survey) | As written in WCAG 2.0: "no techniques are required for conformance". Even if optional in WACEM people might think that they have to use techniques. The question is also if testing techniques is valid against what is written in the WCAG2 itself | Clarifications added in steps 1.e and 4.b | |
| 52 | Detlev Fischer (supersedes Eval TF Survey) | Step 1: Requirement 1e | Closed | "Requirement 1.e: The WCAG 2.0 techniques to be used during the evaluation should be specified." ... "While optional, it is usually quite important to define the WCAG 2.0 Techniques that will be used to carry out the evaluation, to ensure consistent expectation between the evaluation commissioner and the evaluator." | "Requirement 1.e: The WCAG 2.0 techniques successfully or unsuccessfully used to implement web content in an accessible manner should be specified where possible. When WCAG failures are found to apply, these should also be specified." ... "Wherever possible, It is useful to point to the WCAG 2.0 Techniques that have been used (successfully or unsuccessfully) to implement the content. Where WCAG techniques have been used, the test at their end provides a clear documentation of success or failure, supporting the replicability of the evaluation procedure." ... "When a WCAG failure applies to content, listing it gives a clear and replicable proof of the failure for the Success Criterion in question." ... "Listing and referring to applicable techniques and failures also helps in targeting remedial actions." | Clarifications added in steps 1.e and 4.b | |
| 64 | Loretta Guarino Reid (in WCAG WG Survey) | Step 4.b | Closed | "Apply Document WCAG2.0 Tehniques" | "Documented" is ambiguous, whether it refers to techniques documented in the earlier (optional) step of this process, or whether it refers to the WCAG Techniques document. | Clarifications added in steps 1.e and 4.b | |
| 98 | Samuel Sirois (in Eval TF Survey) | Section 3: Step 1.e | Closed | "Requirement 1.e: The WCAG 2.0 techniques to be used during the evaluation should be specified" | "Requirement 1.e: The techniques to be used during the evaluation should be specified" | Because the methodology do not depend on Techniques for WCAG 2.0, we shall talk about "techniques" and not "WCAG 2.0 techniques" | Wording revised |
| 23 | Tim Boland (in Eval TF Survey) | Section 3 Step 1.e | Closed | "other techniques may be used too" | link to an informative "resource" list (with disclaimer if appropriate) of other known techniques/best practices that could be considered as well, so that evaluators will have the most information possible to consider for evaluating websites | There are other techniques/best practices out there besides those officially published on W3C (for example, those being developed by the Web Accessibility Best Practices Working Group | May be difficult to determine criteria of including/excluding; Can be pursued in later drafts if deemed useful |
| 40 | Konstantinos Votis (also in Eval TF Survey) | step 1.e | Closed | I am not so sure about this step..This could be modified for including also techniques that can be assessed automatically and techniques that could be tested by a manual way | According to WCAG2, techniques are agnostic to how they are carried out |
| ID | Commenter | Location | Nature | Current Text | Suggested Change | Rationale | Resolution |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 54 | Detlev Fischer (supersedes Eval TF Survey) | Step 3.b | Closed | "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." | "Requirement 3.b: The range of different web pages (templates) used, the key functionality evaluated, and web technologies employed shall all be part of the selected sample of web pages." | I think the current text is unneccessarily specific and possibly misleading. On the one hand, if two instances selected are essentially the same the work would be redundant. If, on the other hand, just two web pages "from distinct types of web pages" are selected, this may be insufficient. At least for the reader / user of the methodology, the impression could arise that, say, for a site with seven distinct web page templates, selecting just two of the seven would be sufficient. And this would be bad. This is probably not the intention of this section, but it can easily be misunderstood. Essentially, sampling will need to fully reflect the complexity of the site under review. Any quantification is bound to lead to misunderstandings. | Clarifications added to step 3.b, as well as clarifications on templates in steps 2.a and 3.a |
| 55 | Detlev Fischer (supersedes Eval TF Survey) | Step 3.d | Closed | "Requirement 3.d: All web pages that are part of a process for each web page selected through Requirement 3.a, Requirement 3.b, and Requirement 3.c shall be part of the selected sample" | "Requirement 3.d: All complete processes selected must be covered fully by ensuring that all different (non-repetitive) steps are represented in the page sample." (not sure about this, perhaps it is better to be still less specific here to cover the variations of processes out there) | I do not read into the WCAG statement that it is mandatory to evaluate each and every page or page state that is part of a complete process provided that the exploration of complete processes in Step 2 has concluded that the basic setup is accessible. If, for example, a step-by-step process uses the same template and just changes a few instructions and form elements (as in a test with yes/no options used to narrow down a problem space in some expert system), it might be enough to select a few key steps of the entire process. So the stipulation above seems too restrictive and cumbersome to me, especially if each page must be evaluated fully (and not just for selected elements). | Clarifications added to step 3; This is the selection phase, more detail should be in the evaluation step. |
| 69 | Samuel Martín | Step 1.e | Closed | it should be mentioned that the techniques chosen should be coherent with the technologies used on the website (e.g. if Flash is used, Flash techniques are included, etc.) | Clarifications on "relied upon" technologies added to step 2.d | ||
| 53 | Detlev Fischer (supersedes Eval TF Survey) | Step 3.a | Closed | "All elemental web pages shall be part of the selected sample of web pages" | "Instances of all elemental web pages shall be part of the selected sample of web pages" | If elemental pages are of the same design / based on the same template, selecting one of this type should be sufficient. The statement of "all" seems of little value here since the definition referred to is rather vague. | "Elemental web pages" typically provide different and important information or functionality. |
| 92 | Amy Chen | Step 3 | Closed | Rewrite the representative sample section to be a sample of scope. A representative sample could be a percentage of the total scope | Representative sample should be separate from scope | Added this to the top of Step 3. and also to specifically 3.b. Step 3 should only use the website that was selected in step 1 (scope). Sample size is now oriented towards website complexity rather than size. |
|
| 71 | Samuel Martín | Step 3.b | Closed | Some further references would be useful | It is always a headache to find out how representative a sample of web pages is in practice, especially in large websites. Typically, sites with a lot of traffic get more refined sampling, and those are usually the most complex as well. "At least two" is a rule of thumb to start with, but it should not be the same if we talk about a 20-page or a 2-million-page website with hundreds of styles. Maybe this document is not responsible to answer this question, but it would be nice if it could include some pointers. | Depending on the complexity (rather than size) of a website the sample size will grow because the pages will be more diverse; Added this below in the section after the 'reminder'. We could add more reference later in the next editor draft. | |
| 41 | Konstantinos Votis (also in Eval TF Survey) | step 3 | Closed | Regarding the selection of a representative template i ahve the following comment: What about Websites that are being developed through templates and these templates are the same for the most of the pages for these Websites? | Then the sample size will be naturally smaller (see steps 2.3 and 3) |
| ID | Commenter | Location | Nature | Current Text | Suggested Change | Rationale | Resolution |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 26 | Emmanuelle Gutiérrez y Restrepo (in Eval TF Survey) | Section 1.4, Step 2.a, and Step 3.a | Closed | Elemental Webpages | Essential Webpages or Inherent webpages | Disambiguation | Using "Common Web Pages" |
| 43 | Donald Raikes (also in Eval TF Survey) | Section 1.4 | Closed | "Elemental Web Pages" | "Common Web Pages" | Elemental makes it sound like it is a subpart of another page or is included in another page | Using "Common Web Pages" |
| 47 | Detlev Fischer (supersedes Eval TF Survey) | Section 1.4 | Closed | "Elemental Web Pages" | Wouldn't be "Typical Web Pages" more understandable? | not quite clear what "elemental" conveys | Using "Common Web Pages" |
| 81 | Amy Chen | Section 1.4 and Requirement 2.a | Closed | "Elemental Web Pages" | Fundamental, Foundational, or Key web pages? | Need better word for "Elemental Web Pages." | Using "Common Web Pages" |
| 25 | Emmanuelle Gutiérrez y Restrepo (in Eval TF Survey) | 1.1 Scope | Editorial | audit the selected sample | evaluate the selected sample | Disambiguation and clarity for future translations. Or put it in the list of terms and definitions. Maybe can be more clear the term: "Conformity assessment" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformity_assessment] | Edits will be considered in future drafts |
| 27 | Emmanuelle Gutiérrez y Restrepo (in Eval TF Survey) | 1.4 Terms and definitions | Closed | Website developer | Website author | Disambiguation. Is not the same a content author than a web developer. | The term "developer" seems to be more commonly used |
| ID | Commenter | Location | Nature | Current Text | Suggested Change | Rationale | Resolution |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 24 | Richard Warren (in Eval TF Survey) | Section 3 Step 4 | Closed | I would be a lot happier if we had time to flesh out step 4 (Audit) as this is such an important section which will also impact on other areas. | I believe that work on section 4 will produce some refinement to other sections. However, so long as this document is recognised as a first, incomplete draft and therefore subject to much future revision I support publication at this time | Decision to publish as first public draft to get more perspectives from the public recorded in Eval TF Minutes on 15 March; clarifications on the context and state of the work added to the Abstract and Status of this Document sections | |
| 56 | Detlev Fischer (supersedes Eval TF Survey) | Step 4 and 5 | Closed | Flesh out step 4 and 5 to draft stage before publication | With step 4 and 5 just being editor notes at the moment, it is plainly obvious to readers that our methodology is not just a draft, but an *unfinished draft*. Sorry but I think this will come across as a rather sloppy approach (read more in comments from Detlev Fischer) | Decision to publish as first public draft to get more perspectives from the public recorded in Eval TF Minutes on 15 March; clarifications on the context and state of the work added to the Abstract and Status of this Document sections | |
| 65 | Michael Cooper (in WCAG WG Survey) | Overall | Closed | I'm lukewarm about publishing this version. It's an improvement over the last, with editorial notes on the sections that are empty, but still I was expecting at least preliminary content in those sections in the few months since we last reviewed it. There's enough content that I don't oppose publishing a FPWD, but not enough that I actively support it... | Decision to publish as first public draft to get more perspectives from the public recorded in Eval TF Minutes on 15 March; clarifications on the context and state of the work added to the Abstract and Status of this Document sections | ||
| 78 | Carlos Velasco | Overall | Closed | imho it reaches only the range of editor's draft or a requirements doc, but i am not opposed to its publication | Decision to publish as first public draft to get more perspectives from the public recorded in Eval TF Minutes on 15 March; clarifications on the context and state of the work added to the Abstract and Status of this Document sections | ||
| 79 | Judy Brewer | Abstract | Closed | Add more information about the context of use of this Methodology and how it fits with other testing activities | It needs to be clear to the reader how this document fits into the big picture of evaluation and testing | Clarifications on the context and state of the work added to the Abstract and Status of this Document sections | |
| 80 | Judy Brewer | Status of this Document | Closed | Provide a better synposis of the document and what you are asking from the reader to focus on | The status of this document needs to be more clearly explained | Clarifications on the context and state of the work added to the Abstract and Status of this Document sections |
| ID | Commenter | Location | Nature | Current Text | Suggested Change | Rationale | Resolution |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 89 | Amy Chen | Step 1.d | Change | Take out "minimum set of web browsers and assistive technology to evaluate for shall be defined" and take out paragraph "It is important to also define the minimum set of web browsers and assistive technology to evaluate for." | This should be in the product documentation what browsers and AT is recommended, not in the conformance documentation. It might be good to list what was used to test as an optional step, but not required. Conformance should be agnostic to the web browser and AT used. | This is part of defining "accessibility support"; decision to publish as-is for now recorded in Eval TF Minutes on 22 March | |
| 97 | Samuel Sirois (in Eval TF Survey) | Section 3: Step 1.d | Editorial | "The context of website use shall not be used to distort or go around the Scope of Applicability of this methodology as defined in section 2.1" | With this comment, I wish only to make sure that someone could not use the context of website use to reduce the scope of users to which a website is created to "sighted users, fluent in the language and culture in which the website has been written that uses mice on desktop computers and accessing the website with a specific version of a browser, on a specified operating system | Edits may be considered in future versions | |
| 39 | Konstantinos Votis (also in Eval TF Survey) | requirement 1.d | Closed | i am little bit confused with the described requirement. Why do we need to define who uses the Website? I am not sure if we need it | To determine accessibility support | ||
| 74 | Samuel Martín | Step 5 | Closed | One of steps 5.b to 5.f should be required, even though each is individually optional | an evaluation should include at least one of: an accessibility statement, a performance score, information on the findings, suggestions for repairs or a machine-readable report | Rationale unclear; decision to publish as-is for now recorded in Eval TF Minutes on 22 March | |
| 88 | Amy Chen | Step 1: Detailed Review | Closed | Make count recommended, but not required | It is difficult to get an accurate count. For example, WebAIM's Wave Toolbar counts the error for "Form Label Missing" as a separate issue than "Orphaned Form Label" when they both apply to the same field. Another evaluator might count that case differently as one issue with the way the field and label is coded | Count is recommended (bacause only used in optional performance scoring); Count is also intended to be on SC-level; The latter edits will be considered in future drafts | |
| 51 | Detlev Fischer (supersedes Eval TF Survey) | Step 1.b | Closed | One useful goal of the evaluation might be to provide an accessibility score in addition to the binary conformance statement per page and SC, as a means of giving a tangible measure of the distance to full conformance | I know that many clients find an accessibility score helpful. Putting it in the text as an optional element would give us a broader feedback whether such a score is widely perceived as useful addition, and what kind of objections to it exist. The accessibility score has surfaced several times in our discussions but there seems to be no trace of it in the current draft. The methodology may in future revisions elaborate how such a score should be built up, or abstain from defining it. In either case, it can be labelled as 'merely informative'. | Scoring is part of the reporting phase rather than earlier phases; additional cross-links were added in different sections | |
| 73 | Samuel Martín | Step 5.c | Closed | A performance score could also be available for "Basic Conformance" (although it would be a quite simple, boolean score), not only for "Detailed Review". | This does not seem to add value | ||
| 75 | Samuel Martín | Section 5 | Editorial | I would also add that this methodology is mainly oriented to evaluate web sites under a coherent control... Sorry for the wording, maybe I'll explain myself showing what it does not (fully) cover. Some rich web applications allow visualizing different documents or content instances. Conformance with WCAG 2.0 may be assessed using this methodology, but it would not be a comprehensive evaluation, as the web application would also need to be subject to ATAG. Likewise, some rich web applications allow users ("prosumers", as they are both producers and consumers) create and publish their own content. These applications should be subject in addition to UAAG. | Edits will be considered in future drafts | ||
| 42 | Konstantinos Votis (also in Eval TF Survey) | Closed | As a general comment: i think that as a next step we have to create some templates and some examples for providing a clearer understanding to the evaluator who has no experience | That is the intent for future drafts |
| ID | Commenter | Location | Nature | Current Text | Suggested Change | Rationale | Resolution |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 21 | Kerstin Probiesch (1) | Section 1.1: Scope | Change | Because those goodness criteria are defined and internationally agreed in the scientific community already it would be at this very status of the document enough for me to address them in 1.1 Scope of this Document in a very general way (but with explicit mentioning them) and explain or work them out clearer and more specifically in future versions of our methodology (in Eval TF Survey) | Missing explicit statement about the main goodness criteria for evaluations: Objectivity, Reliability, Validity | decision to publish as-is for now recorded in Eval TF Minutes on 22 March | |
| 16 | Vivienne Conway (3) | Title | Closed | Just a question about the new name - to me it will come out sounding like "Whack - Em", while that's cute, may become a bit of a joke. Your thoughts? | Intended URI shortname is WCAG-EM; May introduce the acronym WCAG-EM more actively in future drafts if deemed necessary | ||
| 15 | Vivienne Conway (2) | Step 3b: note (last paragraph) | Closed | Did we decide that the 'majority of web pages' should be freshly selected - I thought we were talking about 20% fresh pages, but I could be mistaken here | Removed "majority" (decision in Eval TF Minutes of 8 March) | ||
| 17 | Kathy Wahlbin (in Eval TF Minutes of 8 March) | Steps 3a, 3b, and 3c | Closed | repitition between 3.a and 3.c regarding pages relevant for people with disabilities | Repetition removed | ||
| 70 | Samuel Martín | Step 2.d | Closed | should go before 2.c | The technologies used in the website should be identified before web pages depending on the technologies they use. Besides, "technology" should not only refer to base technologies (e.g. Javascript, WAI-ARIA), but also to any concrete component that is reused in the website (e.g. jQuery, dojo). | Sequence of steps is actually not relevant; clarifications of that will be considered in future drafts | |
| 18 | Michael Elledge (in Eval TF Minutes of 8 March) | Section 1.3 | Closed | add "resources from W3C" before list | clarification of source | Wording revised | |
| 19 | Vivienne Conway (in Eval TF Minutes of 8 March) | Section 2.1 | Closed | add forward link to step 1.a | clarify relationship and provide examples | Link to step 1 drawn out more | |
| 30 | Konstantinos Votis (also in Eval TF Survey) | section 1.2 target audience | Closed | "Web accessbility consultants and evaluation services" | i think it would be better the "evaluation service providers" because in this text we want to define the audience | Clarity | Wording revised |
| 31 | Konstantinos Votis (also in Eval TF Survey) | section 1.2 target audience | Closed | "monitoring and benchmarking activities" | "organisations involved in Web accessibility.....activities" | Clarity | Not necessarily always organizations |
| 32 | Konstantinos Votis (also in Eval TF Survey) | section 1.2 target audience | Closed | "Policy makers, project managers, and other decision makers who need a standard" | "Policy makers, project managers, and other decision makers who need a standardized way for performing accessbility evaluations" | Clarity | Wording revised |
| 34 | Konstantinos Votis (also in Eval TF Survey) | Section 1.4 | Closed | i would propose to be included in beginning of the methodology | some of the terms are also used before the section 1.4 | Not essential to have the definitions earlier on | |
| 35 | Konstantinos Votis (also in Eval TF Survey) | section 2.2 | Closed | make linkage of this text with section 1.3 | Last sentence already links to 1.3 | ||
| 36 | Konstantinos Votis (also in Eval TF Survey) | section 2.3 | Closed | text "automatically check" | i would propose to include also semi-automatically check | "semi-automatic" already implies human intervention | |
| 37 | Konstantinos Votis (also in Eval TF Survey) | requirement 1.b | Closed | the large scale evaluations as described in the basic conformance it could be also included to detailed review and in depth analysis | Large-scale evaluations do not typically involve in-depth analysis | ||
| 38 | Konstantinos Votis (also in Eval TF Survey) | requirement 1.b: detailed review | Closed | you are talking about Web pages. I suggest to put Web sites or applications | Web pages are, by definition, part of the websites (and web applications) | ||
| 44 | Donald Raikes (also in Eval TF Survey) | Section 1.4 | Closed | Should include registering for a website as an example of key functionality | Wording revised | ||
| 50 | Detlev Fischer (supersedes Eval TF Survey) | Step 1: Requirement 1.b | Closed | "In the case of "Other" the exact goal must be clearly defined." | This forth option should be scrapped or one or two examples be given, as for the other three options | It is not clear what "Other" might be and when this would apply,, so it should be explained with examples | Clarifications will be considered in future drafts, as it will become more apparent when steps 4 and 5 are completed |
| 57 | Xitong Huang (in WCAG WG Survey) | Section 1 | Closed | "Website owners, procurers, suppliers, developers, and others" | "Website owners, procurers, suppliers, developers, assistive software designers and others" | AT developers do not typically evaluate websites | |
| 58 | Xitong Huang (in WCAG WG Survey) | Section 1.4 | Closed | assistive software designer | Definition is not essential to understanding this document | ||
| 59 | Xitong Huang (in WCAG WG Survey) | Step 4.c | Closed | "This section will instruct evaluators to assess accessibility support for WCAG 2.0 Techniques used" | "This section will instruct evaluators to assess accessibility support for WCAG 2.0 Techniques used and assistive software compatibility" | AT considerations are part of "accessibility support" | |
| 61 | Loretta Guarino Reid (in WCAG WG Survey) | Throughout | Closed | "involving people with disabilities and older people" | suggest either droppingn "and older people" or replace with "older people who are developing impairments" | reads oddly, as if age were inherently a disability | Wording revised |
| 68 | Samuel Martín | Section 2.5 | Closed | "it is strongly recommended to involve real people during the evaluation process." | "it is strongly recommended to involve real people [covering a wide range of capabilities] during the evaluation process." | It is perfectly explained in the linked documentation, but it should be also made clear here: the basis does not rely on "having people with disabilities", but on having diverse user profiles, that should cover users with and without different functional capabilities. | Wording revised |
| 76 | Samuel Martín | Appendix C | Closed | The three templates should not be named as "Options" but as "Examples" | Otherwise, it might seem they are mutually exclusive choices | Wording revised | |
| 77 | Samuel Martín | Appendix C: Option 1 | Closed | global/regional may be a misleading wording that seems to be related to localization, instead of website parts | Wording revised | ||
| 87 | Amy Chen | Step 1: Requirement 1.a | Closed | Need to rewrite | Wording is confusing | Wording revised | |
| 90 | Amy Chen | Requirement 2.c | Editorial | Need to provide an example | Edits will be considered in future drafts | ||
| 93 | Samuel Sirois (in Eval TF Survey) | Section 1.4 | Closed | "Primary functionality of a website including tasks that users of a website carry out to perform functionality" | "Primary functionality of a website including tasks that users of a website carry out to perform functionality. A single task may need a set of web pages to be completed" | I believe that we should make sure that the audience of the methodology understands that a task might need more than one web page to be complete. A key functionality should be audited as so (in it's fullness) | Adds too much complexity to this definition |
| 94 | Samuel Sirois (in Eval TF Survey) | Section 2.1 | Closed | "such as to the public and restricted area of a website or the front-end and back-end of a web-based tool, provided that this scope" | "such as to the public and restricted area of a website, provided that this scope" | The wording "front-end" and "back-end" has a specific meaning for developers, which is not the meaning we wish to use in this methodology (as I understand it). For a developer, the front-end is the HTML markup + JavaScript to handle behavior. The back-end is the persistent layer (MySQL, PostgreSQL) and the server-side algorithms, generally written in PHP, Ruby, Python, etc. Because that "front-end and back-end" part didn't bring more to what the phrase already communicated, I simply removed it without replacing that part by anything. | Wording revised |
| 96 | Samuel Sirois (in Eval TF Survey) | Section 3: Step 1 | Closed | "carried out together with the evaluation commissioner (who may be the website owner)" | "carried out together with the evaluation commissionner" | Because it is already stipulated inside the definition of an evaluation commissionner that the evaluation commissionner may be the website owner, I think it is only redundant to include that precision again inside the methodology | Reminder and emphasis is important |
| 99 | Samuel Sirois (in Eval TF Survey) | Section 3: Step 2.b | Closed | Every sentence is written with key functionnality in it's singular form | Every sentence shall be written with key functionnality in it's plural form | A website might have more than one key functionnality. It might only be the fact that I am not totally fluent in English, but key functionnality seems to me as if it is in a singular form and then imposes my brain to search for The One key fonctionnality of a website, which is to restrictive in my belief | Wording revised |
| 100 | Samuel Sirois (in Eval TF Survey) | Section 3: Step 2.d | Closed | "Technologies Used in the Website" | "Technologies Used to display information to the user in the Website" | Because developers (and other technologists) are part of the target audience of the methodology, we shall make clear that when we talk about technologies, we are talking about "front-end" technologies or, in a less geeky gobbledygook way, technologies used to display information to the user. With that precision, a technologist will understand that we are not talking about server-side technologies used to distribute the information | Wording revised |
| 101 | Samuel Sirois (in Eval TF Survey) | Section 3: Step 2 and Step 3 | Closed | "HTML, CSS, Flash, JavaScript, PDF, Silverlight and WAI-ARIA" | "HTML, CSS, Flash, JavaScript, PDF, Silverlight, applets and WAI-ARIA" | Because we have been so precise in the enumeration, we shall include the forgotten "popular" one inside that list of elements | Applets is a Java technique, while Java is the technology; not sure how popular Applets currently are but may be considered in future drafts |
| 33 | Konstantinos Votis (also in Eval TF Survey) | section 1.3 | Closed | "Evaluating Websites for Accessibility - A multi-page resource suite that outlines different approaches for evaluating websites for accessibility" | I am note sure about the definition for the text: Evaluating Websites for Accessibility --- Is this a multi-page resource suite? | Yes it is |
| ID | Commenter | Location | Nature | Current Text | Suggested Change | Rationale | Resolution |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 22 | Kerstin Probiesch (1) | Acknowledgments | Closed | I propose to write the name of the participants like this: pre name, name | This would be more nice | Revised | |
| 28 | Emmanuelle Gutiérrez y Restrepo (in Eval TF Survey) | 3. Evaluation procedure | Editorial | Subsections numeration | Each subsection should be numerated, as for example: 3.1 Step 1: Define the Evaluation Scope | Order and clarity | Edits will be considered in future drafts |
| 1 | Vivienne Conway (1) | Step 1: requirement 1 | Closed | "he" | "the" | Typo | Fixed |
| 29 | Emmanuelle Gutiérrez y Restrepo (in Eval TF Survey) | Step 1. Requirement 1 | Closed | "he evaluation" | "The evaluation" | legibility | Fixed |
| 49 | Detlev Fischer (supersedes Eval TF Survey) | Section 3 Requirement 1 | Closed | "he evaluation" | "The evaluation" | Typo | Fixed |
| 60 | Bruce Bailey (in WCAG WG Survey) | Step 1: Requirement 1 | Closed | "he evaluation" | "The evaluation" | Typo | Fixed |
| 62 | Loretta Guarino Reid (in WCAG WG Survey) | Step 1: Requirement 1 | Closed | "he evaluation" | "The evaluation" | Typo | Fixed |
| 66 | Philip Ackermann | Step 1: Requirement 1 | Closed | "he evaluation" | "The evaluation" | Typo | Fixed |
| 95 | Samuel Sirois (in Eval TF Survey) | Section 3: Requirement 1 | Closed | "he evaluation scope shall be defined according to" | "The evaluation scope shall be defined according to" | Typo | Fixed |
| 2 | Vivienne Conway (1) | Step 1: paragraph under requirement 1 | Closed | "of what the evaluation should cover" | grammar needs changing for the last sentence | Grammar | Wording revised |
| 3 | Vivienne Conway (1) | Step 1b: Detailed review | Closed | "this includes counts of the..." | need to rephrase 2nd sentence | Grammar | Wording revised |
| 4 | Vivienne Conway (1) | Step 1b: Detailed review | Closed | "statics" | "statistics" | Typo | Wording revised |
| 5 | Vivienne Conway (1) | Step 1c: requirement 1c | Closed | "evaluate for shall be defined" | "Define the target WCAG 2.0 conformance level ("A", "AA", or "AAA")" | Grammar | Prefer to keep "shall, should, may" style for now; may consider other styles in future drafts |
| 6 | Vivienne Conway (1) | Step 1c: paragraph under requirement 1c | Closed | don't end the sentence with 'for' | Grammar | Want to emphasize target level for evaluation versus for development; may consider another approach in future drafts | |
| 7 | Vivienne Conway (1) | Step 1c: paragraph under requirement 1c | Closed | whole paragraph could be re-worded for the grammar | Grammar | Wording revised | |
| 8 | Vivienne Conway (1) | Step 1d: requirement 1d | Closed | re-word for the grammar | Grammar | Prefer to keep "shall, should, may" style for now; may consider other styles in future drafts | |
| 9 | Vivienne Conway (2) | Step 2: first paragraph, first sentence | Closed | delete the 'to be evaluated' as it is implied | Grammar | Wording revised in requirement but kept in sentence to emphasize | |
| 10 | Vivienne Conway (2) | Step 2: first paragraph, second sentence | Closed | "Carrying out initial cursory checks during this state assists in the identification of web pages that are relevant for later detailed evaluation." | Grammar | Outdated wording | |
| 11 | Vivienne Conway (2) | Step 2: second paragraph | Closed | "for" | "in" | Grammar | Wording revised |
| 12 | Vivienne Conway (2) | Step 2a: second sentence | Closed | seems a bit redundant | Grammar | Wording revised | |
| 13 | Vivienne Conway (2) | Step 2a: last sentence | Closed | "This step also provides an understanding of key aspects of the website, such as the ..." | Grammar | Outdated wording | |
| 14 | Vivienne Conway (2) | Step 3b: first paragraph | Closed | "from the variety of web pages... select at least two distinct web pages each with the following features (where applicable)" | Grammar | Wording revised | |
| 72 | Samuel Martín | Step 5 | Closed | "Editore" | "Editor" | Typo | Fixed |
| 86 | Amy Chen | Section 1.3 | Closed | Broken link | Fixed |