Disposition of Comments

Resolution:Rewrite Introduction section

Rationale:Take the target audience out because they are already in section 1.2 Purpose of this document and make it more readable for a starter to the document.

For review in the ED draft 20130117 and after discussion in telco of 17 January new version in ED draft 20130122 and in ED draft 20130128. Agreed in Survey 8.

Discussion: We have discussed on list about one page applications and how we would best include them into the methodology. At the moment we do not cover this sufficiently as Ramon indicates. This discussion should also answer the questions Ramon asks here about adding "and/or tasks" to the text (ID2)" This is also related to ID3

Rationale: Needs more discussion and covers more than just this one comment

See discussion in evaltfq6 on one page applications (not yet numbered ID2). Rewrite in different ED. See also Survey 8.

Resolution: No change

Rationale: The text is referring to a website viewed on a mobile device.

For review in the ED draft 20130122. See also Survey 8.

1. It sounds discouraging to test only after development if we pretend to introduce an evaluation methodology as an essential part of the QA process;
2. Testing only after development resembles the old philosophy of considering accessibility only at the end of the road. Developers need a consistent way of evaluating the accessibility of their developments in different phases before the website is shipped, and I think this methodology should cover this to gain wider acceptance.
3. This paragraph really limits applicability of this method for many real-world scenarios where clients want a single procedure for evaluation.
4. In Section "1.2 Target Audience", the methodology is relevant to "Website developers who want an evaluation during the development process". How could they use WCAG-EM if it is not applicable in this situations?

Resolution: Text underwent rewrite. First point was added to the introduction " This methodology can also be useful for other purposes such as for ongoing evaluation of websites during their development."

Rationale:Extending WCAG-EM to cover the different stages of the process of website development is outside the scope of our work as we decided earlier. The methodology requires a website to be fully functional. This could however also be at a moment in time that a website is frozen for the evaluation. This would have effects on the possible claim.

See discussion on DoC_ID_4 in survey evaltfq5. Also, at the face-to-face in Lyon we discussed an idea to describe the primary use cases of the methodology rather than the target audiences -- this allows people to reuse the methodology in many more situations without actually broadening the scope of the document. Also see ID_20 that is related to this comment

Also see thread on list about extending the scope to websites in development. Also see discussion in evaltfq5 discussion on ID_4 and finally the outcome of discussion in the 6 december Telco. Changes to sections were for review in the ED draft 20130122 and Survey 8.

1. I prefer not to restrict the evaluation to "only" sites after development.
2. I find the second paragraph starting "Also, WCAG 2.0 conformance....etc." somewhat puzzling. In the first paragraph, there is mention that the evaluation methodology is only for sites after development but, in the second paragraph, there is mention of the importance of conformance during the development process and following "this methodology" helps assess the conformance.

Resolution: See ID7 for changes made as proposed by EOWG

Rationale: See ID7

Resolution: See ID4 for changes made.

Rationale: See ID4

Resolution:

Rationale: Clearer wording proposed by EOWG and added outcome of discussion in telco. We first changed to "Change text to "However, this methodology only addresses evaluating an existing website's conformance to WCAG 2.0. When developing a website, accessibility should be considered early and throughout the design and development process. Related information outside the scope of this document is provided in Evaluating Websites for Accessibility, W3C WAI Web Accessibility Evaluation and Testing Activities, and WAI Guidelines and Techniques." and added "This can also be a website that is still in development." based on outcome of 6 december 2012 telco", but then agreed on a rewrite. This is now covered in the introduction section of the document.

For review in the ED draft 20130122 and Survey 8.

Closed

Resolution: No change

Rationale: In most cases, there is someone end-responsible, mostly one person, sometimes a team. This should cover split ownership. Also what matters in the context of this document is who is commissioning the evaluation. It could be a third party completely unrelated to the website itself.

See discussion on DoC_ID_8 in evaltfq5 survey.

Common functionality

[...] functionality of a website including tasks that users of a website carry out to perform this functionality.

Resolution: See ID11

Rationale: See ID11

Resolution:See ID11

Rationale:See ID11

Closed

Resolutions:

1. Use the proposal by ID13 to refer to the definition of essential in WCAG2.0 and extend it to website and users. Change to cover possible circularity (by taking out "All"):

"Functionality of a website that, if removed, fundamentally changes the use or purpose of the website for users. This includes information and tasks that users of a website carry out to perform this functionality."

Also add a note that other functionality is not out of scope -- the sections in which "common functionality" currently occurs is intended to help identify critical pages but is not intended to limit evaluation to these pages alone.

Rationale: It is a good reference to another definition that applies well here. This really makes the definition of common functionality more clear.

See discussion on DoC_ID_11 in survey evaltfq5. This comment also covers ID's 9 to 15.

Resolution:See ID11

Rationale:See ID11

Resolution:See ID11

Rationale:See ID11

Resolution:See ID11

Rationale:See ID11

Resolution:See ID11

Rationale:See ID11

Closed

Resolution:
No change

Rationale: We agree to keep common, although there is a number of us not opposed to trying 'core'.

See discussion on DoC_ID_16 in survey evaltfq5

Closed

Resolution: No change

Rationale: It is explained where the term is used in the definition of website.

See also discussion on DoC_ID_17 in survey evaltfq5. When working on the editor draft, we could consider: "websites may be composed of smaller websites (sub-sites)" but this is already meant in the note below the definition. Also Survey 8.

Closed

"Website Owner: The person, team of people, organization, in-house department, or other entity that is responsible for the website."

"Website Developer: Anyone involved in the website development process including but not limited to content authors, designers, programmers, quality assurance testers, and project managers."

For "evaluator", "evaluation commisioner", and "web owner" you use "the person, team of people, organisation..." but for "web developer" you use "anyone involved...". Is this because "Web developer" includes different profiles? It seems to reflect a difference in the "seriousness" of those guys called "web developers".

Resolution: Change to reflect this comment:

"The person, team of people, organization, in-house department, or other entity that is involved in the website development process including but not limited to content authors, designers, programmers, quality assurance testers, and project managers"

Rationale: Good observation

See also discussion on DoC_ID_18 in the survey evaltf5 and Survey 8.

Comment: There is an additional input in the survey about further extending the definition of website developer. This is not used.

Resolution: No change

Rationale: We will keep this item open as an Issue for the next Working draft for more implementation feedback to see where this would need to be clarified. Survey 8.

Closed

Rationale:Also use this comment in the discusssion in ID3

Also see discussion on list and minutes of telco of 6 december 2012

Resolution: No change

Rationale: We agree with the commenter that there are more possible examples here but also that we would like to not expand the bulleted list much more. For an indication, the group feels that this should be ok for now. The text indicates that more examples are possible: "examples include".

Discussion in evaltfq7 survey and Survey 8.

Closed

Resolution:
Change in rewrite of the Introduction: "This methodology, Website Accessibility Conformance Evaluation Methodology (WCAG-EM) 1.0, describes a way to evaluate the conformance of existing websites to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0. This methodology can also be useful for other purposes such as for ongoing evaluation of websites during their development."

Rationale: The focus is now on the word purpose and not on the fact if the website is finished.
We want to be careful with exclusion criteria. We have previously decided to address this by not making it possible to exclude any parts of a website. We decided that we want to approach this in a positive way, encouraging the use of the methodology from the start without broadening the scope - this allows people to (re)use the methodology for many more situations without actually broadening the scope of the document. The answer to the question would be yes. There have been a number of rewrites of this section. The latest is covered in Survey 8.

See discussion in Survey about DoC_ID20. No comments about proposed resolution during telco and week after. And decisions in Telco. For review in ED 17 january and again in ED 22 January 2013. New rewrite in the ED draft 20130122. Agreement in survey 8.

Closed in ID20

Resolution: See ID20

Rationale: See ID20

See discussion about this DoC_ID23 in the evaltfq5 survey

I don't see any conflict if certain "pages" (or even processes) are excluded. Component #4 of the "Required Components of a Conformance Claim" does not prohibit exclusions, and a "concise description of the Web pages" could be something like "All Web pages under mydomain.com except PDF documents older than...". There are multiple situations where clients cannot assume the necessary changes to "completely conform in all pages", and where the only "solution" is to explicitly state that there are parts of the website that are not accessible. Thus, I consider it more realistic to inform about the exclusion than prohibiting exclusions.

The Conformance Claim section in WCAG 2.0 is clearly open to allow exclusions, and if we already know that some parts will be inaccessible, we should be able to define the exact scope of the evaluation without being forced to include ALL the pages. We should maintain this openness in WCAG-EM; if we close the possibility for exclusions, I see a potential risk that the methodology itself would not be adopted by website owners with these special needs related to non-conformant parts.

Resolution: See ID20

Rationale: See ID20

Resolution: See ID20

Rationale: See ID20

Resolution: See ID20

Rationale: See ID20

Resolution: See ID20

Rationale: See ID20

Resolution: See ID20

Rationale: See ID20. This is covered in 2.1 websites with seperable areas.

Closed

Rationale: We rely on the definition of web pages used in WCAG2.0

See the outcome in the survey about DoC_ID29

Rationale: The Methodology also supports formative assessment, but over time. Also subparts of websites can be evaluated using WCAG-EM. It is not summative only. The difference is indicated in the text in section 1.1 (to 20 september 2012 link). For review in the ED draft 20130122. See survey 8

Closed

Rationale: Proposal from discussion in questionnaire and telco is clearer. Also the first sentence did not end.

Discussion in evaltfq6 survey on ID31 and closed in Eval Telco of 17 January 2013. Following rewrite in 22 january version, Survey 8 evaluates the rewrite. A typo was repaired after that removing the word "and" (see Resolution above)

Resolution: See ID31

Rationale: See ID31

Resolution: No change

Rationale: Responsive web pages seem included into the document in section 3. Discussion in evaltfq7 survey and Survey 8

• Websites embedded within Native mobile apps
• Mobile apps developed using web technologies such as HTML5, CSS3 and JS
• Websites used in TV/game consoles/ATM that are embedded within specific environments
• Websites that are created for a specific group of people with disabilities (blind users, deaf users...) or for specific purposes that are not intended to be accessible to all types of disabilities

Resolution: No change.

Rationale: Better to show what is included than show what is excluded. Both cannot be complete. Propose to keep the current text and open discussion in the group: evaltfq7. There was a rewrite of this section after the survey 7. This was closed in survey 8.

Resolution: No change

Rationale: Agree, but this is not always simple as described in the text. The sampling section has been rewritten. We have reviewed it in ED draft 20130122

Resolution: No change

Rationale: Not sure if we want to include this into the document as it could confuse people. Yet another document to read?

Closed

Rationale: Needs more discussion. We will keep this comment as Issue for the next version of the document.

Discussion was open in evaltfq6 survey on ID37 and in Survey 8.

Closed

Rationale: We plan to put in a new diagram before publication

For review in the ED draft 20130128. Discussion about the diagram in survey 8 and discussion and decision in Telco of 7 february 2012 to work on new diagram. The new diagram chosen in the EvalTF Telco of 14 February.

Resolution: Insert the new diagram as planned

Rationale: We will make the iterative relation between steps 1, 2 and 3 more clear with a new diagram. The reason for seperating the steps is precisely that for some people it is not obvious and the iterative steps can lead them.

For review in the ED draft 20130128. Also see Previous Comment (ID 38). For evaluation in Survey 8.

Closed

" The stages are not necessarily sequential."

Keep: "The following diagram illustrates the iterations between the stages defined in this section"

Rationale: Terminology should be ok

See discussion in survey about DoC_ID40.

Closed

Resolution: Use proposal from survey: change "third-party content" to "content and services developed externally".

Rationale: Better

See survey about DoC_ID41

Resolution: No change

Rationale: Preliminary reporting is already covered in section 1.3 Background reading and in the introduction of section 2 by linking to the evaluation suite. WCAG-EM does not provide a Partial Reporting option.

For review in the ED draft 20130122

Rationale:Even for the most basic evaluation following WCAG-EM it is necessary to follow steps for a full evaluation. For quick scanning of a website, it may be better to use the preliminary review in the evaluation suite. The eval suite is linked from the document.

For review in the ED draft 20130122

Resolution: No change

Rationale: This is an indication that is necessary to align with the evaluation commissioner. Maybe the text is a bit redundant. There is a more detailed approach in section 3.5.1 Step 5.a: Provide Documentation for Each Step

For review in the ED draft 20130122

Rationale: They are part of the target audience in section 1.2 although not all named there. The goals are more about the reporting weight than roles for the use of the document.

For review in the ED draft 20130122

Rationale: There is discussion ongoing on this in evaltfq7 and in the ED of 22 January 2013. Survey 8 covers endresult of discussion.

Rationale: This does not limit the goal to one of the three choices anymore. Makes reporting more flexible. However, these three are used as example and worked out in later sections. See the evaltfq7 survey.

Rationale: Stopping an evaluation is a choice of the evaluator. If the evaluation does not follow section 5 Application of this Methodology, it is not a valid WCAG-EM evaluation.

For review in the ED draft 20130122

Closed

Rationale: This is covered in section 4.1.

Discussion in evaltfq6 survey on ID49

Closed

Rationale: See ID49

Discussion in evaltfq6 survey on ID50

This requirement appears to claim that the website owner and evaluator are free to choose which users may be excluded. Human rights do not work that way. What reasonable base technologies are required for conformance? This is particularly disturbing within the context of intranets where employers may choose to limit users to assistive technologies the employer can purchase cheaply. The note at the end is not sufficient.
Example, many sites prescribe large print with high contrast to be a universal cure for low vision. This discounts the need for albinos to have lower luminosity. Without high luminosity, high contrast is not possible.

Rationale: Section led to confusion and the idea that it was possible to exclude groups of people or people using specific AT, browsers etc. This is not the intention. The selection is done better in the next step.

For review in the ED draft 20130122

Rationale:See ID51

Rationale:See ID51

1. I think requiring identical AT support across a large site is a very liberal interpretation of the intent of WCAG.
2. It’s almost impossible to do on a large site, although for smaller sites it certainly a worthy goal.
3. It could also negatively affect between testing tools, and consultancies. Policy may interpret this clause to dictate one corporate evaluation tool the winner, and one consultancy to do all of the contracts within a department this could create a monopoly situation and increased prices of accessibility.
4. It could negatively affect the way we test: sometimes I’ll have one tester do one part of the site with a set of tools, and another tester have slight variations on those i.e., a different screen reader, or different OS, or version of browser etc I wouldn’t want their results to be invalid, I actually want the variation.

Rationale: This section has been deleted. Uniform AS was moved to 3.4.2 Step 4.b: Assess Accessibility Support for Features but it was dropped in the last Editor draft. We will discuss this subject in more detail after the next Public Working Draft. Decision in Telco of 7 February 2012.

Rationale:See ID51

Rationale:See ID51

Resolution:See ID51

Rationale:See ID51

Resolution:See ID51

Rationale:See ID51

Resolution:See ID51

Rationale:See ID51

Resolution: See ID51

Rationale:See ID51

Resolution:See ID51

Rationale:See ID51

Resolution: Add to Step 4.b last paragraph: "Please mark that "sufficient" techniques are not automatically always accessibility supported."

Rationale: This was not covered yet and could be unclear.

For review in the ED draft 20130122

Rationale: We address this in the second paragraph: "W3C/WAI provides a set of publicly documented Techniques for WCAG 2.0. However, it is not necessary to use these particular techniques. In fact, in some situations, such as in a closed network, it may be necessary to use techniques that are specifically developed for such situations. Individuals and organizations developing techniques ... etc." and in "It is good practice to specify the sets or sources of techniques that are intended to be used during the evaluation at this stage "

For review in the ED draft 20130122

Resolution: No change

Rationale: The link to Step 1.d was deleted pending deletion of the section.

For review in the ED draft 20130122

Also in section Step 2.d changed text to cover this.

Rationale: Document should be vendor and technology neutral. And the technologies are already covered.

For review in the ED draft 20130128

Resolution: No change

Rationale: In many cases it is possible to do the same in the life website with a demo or test account in the 'live system'.

For review in the ED draft 20130128

Resolution: No change

Rationale: This is meant as something that can be helpful. The evaluator would then be able to receive even more helpful tips in exploring the website.

For review in the ED draft 20130122

Resolution: No change

Rationale: Common functionality definition has changed and this section has been made more clear by adding part of the definition of common web pages.

For review in the ED draft 20130122

Resolution: See ID68

Rationale: See ID68

Resolution: No change here. States have changed earlier in the document. See ID31

Rationale: See earlier section for change to States ID31

Resolution: No change

Rationale: We have placed templates into this section so they can be included into the sample. Repeating parts are covered in the note at the end of the introduction of section 3.3 Step 3: Select a Representative Sample. For review in the ED draft 20130128

Rationale: This change creates better coverage.

For review in the ED draft 20130128

Rationale: Section 3.2.4 Step 2.d: Identify Web Technologies Relied Upon creates awareness for other sources that influence the presentation and/or generation of content.

For review in the ED draft 20130128

Resolution: Change as requested: from "This includes base web technologies such as HTML and CSS, auxiliary web technologies such as Flash, Java, JavaScript, PDF, Silverlight and WAI-ARIA, as well as advanced web technologies such as SMIL and SVG. "

to

"This includes base web technologies such as HTML and CSS, HTML5, auxiliary web technologies such as Java, JavaScript and WAI-ARIA, as well as advanced web technologies such as SMIL and SVG. "

Rationale: More complete

For review in the ED draft 20130128

Rationale: We cover this in sections 3.4.2 Step 4.b: Assess Accessibility Support for Features and section 3.4.3 Step 4.c: Use WCAG 2.0 Techniques and Failures Where Possible (Optional) and later in section 5 for the reporting.

For review in the ED draft 20130128

Resolution:Proposed a new section on random sampling in: 3.3.5 Step 3.e: Include a Random Sample.

Rationale: Discussed as necessary in EvalTF

For review in the ED draft 20130122

Resolution: No change

Rationale:We will test the sampling in more detail during the first testrun. In the 20 september version of the ED there was not much information about the sampling. This is added now.

Resolution: Section rewrite. Comment is processed in part in the rewrite.

Rationale: Section needs rewrite

For review in the ED draft 20130122

Resolution: Agree. We will add a random sample

Rationale: Thank you. We also support this and have received good input sofar

For review in the ED draft 20130122 and in later versions. See final survey.

Resolution:No change

Rationale: Is covered in the defnition of web page.

For review in the ED draft 20130122

Resolution: No change

Rationale: We try to avoid the word 'should'. Also the current sentence includes web applications where it will be very difficult or almost impossible to sample all web pages. The proposed sentence is limiting the sampling only to very large websites. This is difficult to define and we would also like to include smaller websites as candidate for sampling.

For review in the ED draft 20130128

Resolution: No change

Rationale: We indicate in earlier sections that it is important to actively involve people with disabilities. This is in section 2.5 Involving Users (Optional) and in section 3.2.2 Step 2.b: Identify Common Functionality of the Website.

For review in the ED draft 20130128

Closed

Resolution: No change

Rationale: Keep it for the moment.  

For review in the ED draft 20130128

Resolution: Change this as indicated and add a filter as final step: add "3.3.6 Step 3.f: Filter the sample to eliminate redundancy"

Rationale: We could otherwise risk large samples

For review in the ED draft 20130128

Resolution: See ID31

Rationale: See ID31, and common web pages is defined in the document

Resolution: Change from "content, design, and functionality" to "distinct types of web pages"

Rationale: To be in line with the text below and the earlier steps.

For review in the ED draft 20130122

Resolution: See ID84

Rationale: See ID84

Resolution: See ID86

Rationale: See ID86

Resolution: See ID86

Rationale: See ID86

Resolution: No change

Rationale: We do use it in the text, but for the Methodology Requirement and the section heading, it is clearer to indicate that this is specifically about other/more pages that are relevant.

For review in the ED draft 20130122

Closed

Resolution: Change the definition of common web pages to read "... where applicable, the sitemap, contacts page,"

Rationale: contact page is already included in the definition of common web pages. This could make it more visible.

See also discussion in survey about DoC_ID91

Resolution: Add the options to the first bulletpoint

Rationale: It is included, but may be good to specifically point it out. That is why it is included.

For review in the ED draft 20130128

Resolution: No change

Rationale: This is now covered in 3.2.2 Step 2.b: Identify Common Functionality of the Website. Text has changed to include more clearly user tasks. They are then included into the sample in 3.3.2 Step 3.b: Include Exemplar Instances of Web Pages: Web pages from distinct common functionality, as identified per 3.2.2 Step 2.b.

For review in the ED draft 20130128

Resolution: See ID 93

Rationale: See ID 93

Resolution:Change from "Also, no web page.." to "No web page.."

Rationale: Editorial change

Closed

Resolution:Add section

Rationale: Filtering redundancy at the end of the proces of sampling seems the most logical place before starting the actual audit section.

For review in editor draft of 20130122

Resolution:See ID 96

Rationale: See ID 96 

Resolution: Open issue to look at this in next version, first propose when to use audit, evaluation, check, test etc in the document (Harmonize the use of Audit, Evaluation, Check, Test etc in the document)

Rationale: use the same terminology throughout the document

Explain methods to do the evaluation: 1. using automated tools, 2. using assistive technology, 3. using manual inspections by subject matter experts, 4 (optional depending on scope and phase in development) using usability test participants who have disabilities.

Set up a framework to help guide evaluators on which combinations of methods (tools, manual, AT, and user test) are best for each particular success criteria - not in a perscriptive way, but in an explanatory and educational way.

Resolution: No change. We will consider if we can add information about more effective ways to evaluate (in step 4) and make a text proposal for that.

Rationale: We do not plan to go into the actual evaluation in more detail.

For review in the ED draft 20130128

Resolution: Change to "Depending on the Goal of the Evaluation..."

Rationale: More in line with the linked section title.

For review in the ED draft 20130128

Closed

Resolution: Change to: "Check that each web page in the selected sample (per 3.3 Step 3: Select
a Representative Sample) meets each of the WCAG 2.0 conformance
requirements, including all the WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria relevant to
the target conformance level (per 3.1.3 Step 1.c: Define the Conformance
Target)."

and

"For each web page in the sample selected per 3.3 Step 3: Select a
Representative Sample, check whether each of the WCAG 2.0 conformance
requirements have been met, including all WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria
relevant to the target conformance level (per 3.1.3 Step 1.c: Define the
Conformance Target)."

Rationale: The comment is true. Proposed is a slightly changed text to cover this.

For review in the ED draft 20130128

Resolution: Add "interactive user interface elements."

Rationale: The dynamically generated or rendered content is already part of the sample.

For review in the ED draft 20130128

Resolution: No change

Rationale: Currently, we use the levels provided by WCAG and do not support seperate collections of SC from different levels. 

Resolution: See ID 100

Rationale: See ID 100, rewrite

Resolution: n/a

Rationale: This comment was deleted because there was no text

Resolution: No change

Rationale: Thank you

Resolution: Make ISSUE to discuss what happens when content can be skipped for an alternative

Rationale: Needs more input

Resolution: n/a

Rationale: No comment

Closed

Resolution: No change

Rationale: The URIs must be recorded and included in the report covered in the Sample, Step 3. This section is about archiving the pages. Archiving is optional.

Resolution: Rewrite Appendix. Use in rewrite of Appendix C. Add at the end of that section: "Reports could also indicate the impact of issues found and specifically identify any high impact issues that are easy to fix. This could include: Any accessibility issues that interfere with the user completing tasks, issues that affect navigation and orientation, issues that occur very frequently and issues that can cause any loss or harm to a user. A lot of the important but technical information could be put in an appendix (such as documentation of each outcome of the steps as per 3.5.1 Step 5.a: Provide Documentation for Each Step)."

Rationale: Please read the changes made in the Editor draft of 22 January 2013 . Not added to section Step 5.a but to Appendix C.Also for review in the ED draft 20130128

Resolution: Rewrite of section. And add: "Include information in the report needed to create bug reports (Optional);" for detailed and in-depth analysis report

Rationale: Useful information, but made optional. Added to Appendix C and not to section 3.5. For review in the ED draft 20130128

Closed with ID111

Resolution: See ID111

Rationale: See ID111

Closed with ID110

Resolution: See ID110

Rationale: See ID110

Resolution: See ID110

Rationale: See ID110

Resolution: See ID110

Rationale: See ID110

Resolution: Change

Rationale: In line with the rest of the document that also uses an impersonal form for the sentences. For review in the ED draft 20130122

Closed

Resolution: Rewrite to make difference clear and make uniform throughout the document.

Rationale: Changed to be more in line with rest of the document. Rewrite also covers other comments. For review in the ED draft 20130122

Resolution: See ID 117

Rationale:See ID 117

Resolution: See ID 117

Rationale: See ID 117

Resolution: See ID 117

Rationale: See ID 117

Resolution: See ID110 and ID 117

Rationale: See ID110 and ID 117

Closed

Resolution: n/a

Rationale: This section has been rewritten in such a way that this comment has been covered.

For review in the ED draft 20130128

Closed

Resolution: No change

Rationale: Included earlier in the note of section 3.1.3 Step 1.c: Define the Conformance Target: "Note: It is often useful to expand the scope of the evaluation beyond the planned conformance target to get a more complete picture of the accessibility performance of the website. An evaluator could include a selection of success criteria from higher conformance levels."

For review in the ED draft 20130128

Closed

Resolution: No change

Rationale: This is indirectly included. Maybe good to add examples in a later version if this leads to confusion. For review in the ED draft 20130128

Closed

Resolution: No change

Rationale: The idea is that the evaluator follows 5. Application of this Methodology. This means that all steps are walked through. Evaluations that use and document the steps in this methodology should thus be able to provide the statement. For review in the ED draft 20130128

Closed

Rationale: third-party content and lack of accessibility support are very well described for partial conformance statements. We need to give that a place in the methodology. For review in the ED draft 20130128

Resolution: Rewrite this section

Rationale: This section needs a rewrite. In this rewrite, the following comments will be taken into account.

Resolution: See ID 127

Rationale: See ID 127

Resolution:See ID 127

Rationale:See ID 127

Resolution:See ID 127

Rationale:See ID 127

Resolution:See ID 127

Rationale:See ID 127

Resolution:See ID 127

Rationale:See ID 127

Resolution:See ID 127

Rationale:See ID 127

Resolution:See ID 127

Rationale:See ID 127

Resolution:See ID 127

Rationale:See ID 127

Resolution:See ID 127

Rationale:See ID 127

Resolution:See ID 127

Rationale:See ID 127

Rationale:See ID 127

Closed

Rationale: Harmonized format for EARL report would be useful for interchange of data

Rationale: See ID 139

Rationale: Not necessary because this is covered earlier in the document and does not add new information.

Resolution: Discussion about combining evaluations and rewrite using outcome from EvalTF discussion

Rationale: Needs more input. Result is in Telco's. Discussion in mailing list thread (combining evaulations) and in EvalTF survey 7 and survey 8.

Resolution: See ID 142

Rationale: See ID 142

Closed

Resolution: Propose rewrite

Rationale: Agree with commenter. Currently not clear

Discussion in EvalTF survey 8 and decision in final survey.

Closed with ID 144

Resolution: See ID 144

Rationale: See ID 144

Rationale: Because this could be a use case of the methodology, interesting to see if we can support it more than currently in the document. In 28 february 2012 ED.

Closed

Resolution: No change

Rationale: The steps follow the model explained earlier in the document in the introduction of section 3. We will consider a rewrite a first test-run. For review in the ED draft 20130128

Closed

Rationale: We agreed on the word steps earlier in the document authoring. We hope the next version of the diagram will be more clear on the relation between the sections. It is always possible to go back one or more step. For review in the ED draft 20130128

Resolution: Rewrite section

Rationale:Section needs a rewrite as indicated.For review in the ED draft 20130128

Resolution: No change

Rationale: It is specifically encouraged but optional in the current version. For review in the ED draft 20130128

Resolution: See ID 156

Rationale: There is a rewrite of the section on background reading . This will be discussed for that rewrite. 

Closed in ID 4

Resolution:We added evaluation during development in the document

Rationale: See ID 4 and ID 7

Closed

Resolution: No change

Rationale: Not sure if this is part of the Web Content evaluation as we do it. For review in the ED draft 20130128

Resolution: Move to Status of this document

Rationale: Agree with comment. But we did do a rewrite that changes this. For review in the ED draft 20130128 

Resolution: See ID7

Rationale: See ID7

Closed

Resolution: rewrite where necessary and review in ED

Rationale: Look into necessity of links in the context of the document . For review in the ED draft 20130128

Resolution: See ID 156

Rationale:See ID 156

Resolution:See ID 156

Rationale:See ID 156

Resolution:See ID 156

Rationale:See ID 156

Closed

Resolution: No change

Rationale: Agree

Closed

Resolution: n/a

Rationale:Different section have had a rewrite. This is added also in Appendix C. For review in the ED draft 20130128

See ID 166

Closed

Resolution: n/a

Rationale: Different sections had a rewrite

Closed

Resolution: Remove internal links in the page to "website", "web page" etc. just before the terms and definition section on first appearance. Also removed them from the Methodology Requirements to be unflinching.

Rationale: The constant repetition of these links can be irritating for blind people.

Closed

Resolution: Open Issue about possibility of including more context as proposed in next version.

Rationale: the British Standard provides a framework that can include WCAG-EM. At the moment WCAG does not cover sections on procurement and selection of production tools and CMSes; outsourcing production to third-parties; project management of inclusive production; assessment of accessibility risk and impact on budgets etc. like the reference does.

Closed

Resolution:Take all numbering out of the substeps after finalizing processing the comments to help locate where the comments refer to..

Change from:

3.1.1 Step 1.a: Define the Scope of the Website

to

Step 1.a: Define the Scope of the Website

Rationale: Makes it easier to understand and end to long lists of numbers when it is read aloud i.e. using speech synthesizers.

See also discussion on DoC_ID166 in the evaltfq5 survey

Closed

Resolution: Delete

Rationale: In the rewrite Editor Draft of 20130122 we only have 5 left. They seem functional there.

Resolution: See ID 156

Rationale: See ID 156

Closed

Resolution: n/a

Rationale: Different sections have been rewritten

Closed with ID 164

Resolution: See ID 164

Rationale: See ID 164

Closed with ID 164

Resolution: See ID 164

Rationale: See ID 164

Closed

Resolution:Use as input for rewrite of section 1

Rationale: Rewrite is scheduled

For review in the ED draft 20130128

Resolution:Add to text as proposed

Rationale:This reflects the approach used in the WCAG document

For review in the ED draft 20130122

Closed

Rationale: This is covered in more detail in the section about purpose of the document.

For review in the ED draft 20130128

Closed

Resolution: rewrite

Rationale:For review in the ED draft 20130128

Closed

Resolution: New diagram

Rationale: Agree 

Closed

Resolution: Changed

Rationale: Thank you

For review in the ED draft 20130128

Closed in ID 31

Resolution: See ID 31

Rationale: See ID 31

Closed

Resolution: Change to "Success Criteria"

Rationale: Accessibility requirements are larger than we evaluate here. Limit to success criteria. For review in the ED draft 20130128

Closed

Resolution: No change

Rationale: Terminology from EOWG. For review in the ED draft 20130128

Closed

Resolution: No change

Rationale: change would put unnecessary emphasis on expertise. might, may etc. For review in the ED draft 20130128

Resolution: No change

Rationale: We use 'real' deliberately to emphasize this as opposed to experts. For review in the ED draft 20130128

Closed

Resolution: Changed

Rationale: Thank you. For review in the ED draft 20130117

Closed

Resolution: No change

Rationale: Techniques to be used seems clearer. No other comments received about this title. For review in the ED draft 20130128

Closed

Resolution: No change

Rationale: Agree that both controlled and uncontrolled are options. We could add controlled between brackets (), but in the current text, both are included. The wish for more guidance may arise from the first test-run of the methodology. For review in the ED draft 20130128

Resolution: Change as indicated

Rationale: Editorial

Closed

Resolution: No change

Rationale: Examples are given in the same paragraph. For review in the ED draft 20130128

Resolution: Change

Rationale:Editorial, this is also not done in the other section titles. For review in the ED draft 20130128

Closed in ID 4

Resolution: See ID 4 and ID 7

Rationale:See ID 4 and ID 7

Closed

Resolution: No change

Rationale: The conversely is pointing at the bulleted list above. For review in the ED draft 20130128

Closed

Resolution: Change

Rationale: More logical. For review in the ED draft 20130128 

Closed

Resolution:No change

Rationale:Agree, but this should not be in this document but in an introduction page to WCAG-EM