Input: [#] 1801 [Canon2OpenEXI] PASSED [EXIficient2OpenEXI] PASSED [Canon2EXIficient] PASSED [OpenEXI2EXIficient] PASSED [EXIficient2Canon] PASSED [OpenEXI2Canon] PASSED [Specification reference] specification [Input file] file [Testcase description] Valid unsigned integer element value [Test case]

Output: | all | compression | builtinDatatypes | validDatatype | unsignedIntegerValid | unsignedInteger-valid-03

EXI 1.0 (Second Edition): All interoperability tests


Input: [#] 1802 [Canon2OpenEXI] PASSED [EXIficient2OpenEXI] PASSED [Canon2EXIficient] PASSED [OpenEXI2EXIficient] PASSED [EXIficient2Canon] PASSED [OpenEXI2Canon] PASSED [Specification reference] specification [Input file] file [Testcase description] Valid unsigned integer element value [Test case]

Output: | all | compression | builtinDatatypes | validDatatype | unsignedIntegerValid | unsignedInteger-valid-04

EXI 1.0 (Second Edition): All interoperability tests


Input: [#] 1803 [Canon2OpenEXI] PASSED [EXIficient2OpenEXI] PASSED [Canon2EXIficient] PASSED [OpenEXI2EXIficient] PASSED [EXIficient2Canon] PASSED [OpenEXI2Canon] PASSED [Specification reference] specification [Input file] file [Testcase description] Valid unsigned integer element value [Test case]

Output: | all | compression | builtinDatatypes | validDatatype | unsignedIntegerValid | unsignedInteger-valid-05

EXI 1.0 (Second Edition): All interoperability tests


Input: [#] 1804 [Canon2OpenEXI] PASSED [EXIficient2OpenEXI] PASSED [Canon2EXIficient] PASSED [OpenEXI2EXIficient] PASSED [EXIficient2Canon] PASSED [OpenEXI2Canon] PASSED [Specification reference] specification [Input file] file [Testcase description] Valid unsigned integer element value [Test case]

Output: | all | compression | builtinDatatypes | validDatatype | unsignedIntegerValid | unsignedInteger-valid-06

EXI 1.0 (Second Edition): All interoperability tests


Input: [#] 1805 [Canon2OpenEXI] PASSED [EXIficient2OpenEXI] PASSED [Canon2EXIficient] PASSED [OpenEXI2EXIficient] PASSED [EXIficient2Canon] PASSED [OpenEXI2Canon] PASSED [Specification reference] specification [Input file] file [Testcase description] Valid unsigned integer element value [Test case]

Output: | all | compression | builtinDatatypes | validDatatype | unsignedIntegerValid | unsignedInteger-valid-07

EXI 1.0 (Second Edition): All interoperability tests


Input: [#] 1806 [Canon2OpenEXI] PASSED [EXIficient2OpenEXI] PASSED [Canon2EXIficient] PASSED [OpenEXI2EXIficient] PASSED [EXIficient2Canon] PASSED [OpenEXI2Canon] PASSED [Specification reference] specification [Input file] file [Testcase description] Valid unsigned integer element value [Test case]

Output: | all | compression | builtinDatatypes | validDatatype | unsignedIntegerValid | unsignedInteger-valid-08

EXI 1.0 (Second Edition): All interoperability tests


Input: [#] 1807 [Canon2OpenEXI] PASSED [EXIficient2OpenEXI] PASSED [Canon2EXIficient] PASSED [OpenEXI2EXIficient] PASSED [EXIficient2Canon] PASSED [OpenEXI2Canon] PASSED [Specification reference] specification [Input file] file [Testcase description] Valid unsigned integer element value [Test case]

Output: | all | compression | builtinDatatypes | validDatatype | unsignedIntegerValid | unsignedInteger-valid-09

EXI 1.0 (Second Edition): All interoperability tests


Input: [#] 1808 [Canon2OpenEXI] PASSED [EXIficient2OpenEXI] PASSED [Canon2EXIficient] PASSED [OpenEXI2EXIficient] PASSED [EXIficient2Canon] PASSED [OpenEXI2Canon] PASSED [Specification reference] specification [Input file] file [Testcase description] Valid unsigned integer element value [Test case]

Output: | all | compression | builtinDatatypes | validDatatype | unsignedIntegerValid | unsignedInteger-valid-10

EXI 1.0 (Second Edition): All interoperability tests


Input: [#] 1809 [Canon2OpenEXI] PASSED [EXIficient2OpenEXI] PASSED [Canon2EXIficient] PASSED [OpenEXI2EXIficient] PASSED [EXIficient2Canon] PASSED [OpenEXI2Canon] PASSED [Specification reference] specification [Input file] file [Testcase description] Valid unsigned integer element value [Test case]

Output: | all | compression | builtinDatatypes | validDatatype | unsignedIntegerValid | unsignedInteger-valid-11

EXI 1.0 (Second Edition): All interoperability tests


Input: [#] 1810 [Canon2OpenEXI] PASSED [EXIficient2OpenEXI] PASSED [Canon2EXIficient] PASSED [OpenEXI2EXIficient] PASSED [EXIficient2Canon] PASSED [OpenEXI2Canon] PASSED [Specification reference] specification [Input file] file [Testcase description] Valid unsigned integer element value [Test case]

Output: | all | compression | builtinDatatypes | validDatatype | unsignedIntegerValid | unsignedInteger-valid-12

EXI 1.0 (Second Edition): All interoperability tests


Input: [#] 1811 [Canon2OpenEXI] PASSED [EXIficient2OpenEXI] PASSED [Canon2EXIficient] PASSED [OpenEXI2EXIficient] PASSED [EXIficient2Canon] PASSED [OpenEXI2Canon] PASSED [Specification reference] specification [Input file] file [Testcase description] Valid unsigned integer element value [Test case]

Output: | all | compression | builtinDatatypes | validDatatype | unsignedIntegerValid | unsignedInteger-valid-13

EXI 1.0 (Second Edition): All interoperability tests


Input: [#] 1812 [Canon2OpenEXI] PASSED [EXIficient2OpenEXI] PASSED [Canon2EXIficient] PASSED [OpenEXI2EXIficient] PASSED [EXIficient2Canon] PASSED [OpenEXI2Canon] PASSED [Specification reference] specification [Input file] file [Testcase description] Valid integer element value [Test case]

Output: | all | compression | builtinDatatypes | validDatatype | integerValid | integer-valid-00

EXI 1.0 (Second Edition): All interoperability tests


Input: [#] 1813 [Canon2OpenEXI] PASSED [EXIficient2OpenEXI] PASSED [Canon2EXIficient] PASSED [OpenEXI2EXIficient] PASSED [EXIficient2Canon] PASSED [OpenEXI2Canon] PASSED [Specification reference] specification [Input file] file [Testcase description] Valid integer element value [Test case]

Output: | all | compression | builtinDatatypes | validDatatype | integerValid | integer-valid-01

EXI 1.0 (Second Edition): All interoperability tests


Input: [#] 1814 [Canon2OpenEXI] PASSED [EXIficient2OpenEXI] PASSED [Canon2EXIficient] PASSED [OpenEXI2EXIficient] PASSED [EXIficient2Canon] PASSED [OpenEXI2Canon] PASSED [Specification reference] specification [Input file] file [Testcase description] Valid integer element value [Test case]

Output: | all | compression | builtinDatatypes | validDatatype | integerValid | integer-valid-02

EXI 1.0 (Second Edition): All interoperability tests


Input: [#] 1815 [Canon2OpenEXI] PASSED [EXIficient2OpenEXI] PASSED [Canon2EXIficient] PASSED [OpenEXI2EXIficient] PASSED [EXIficient2Canon] PASSED [OpenEXI2Canon] PASSED [Specification reference] specification [Input file] file [Testcase description] Valid integer element value [Test case]

Output: | all | compression | builtinDatatypes | validDatatype | integerValid | integer-valid-03

EXI 1.0 (Second Edition): All interoperability tests


Input: [#] 1816 [Canon2OpenEXI] PASSED [EXIficient2OpenEXI] PASSED [Canon2EXIficient] PASSED [OpenEXI2EXIficient] PASSED [EXIficient2Canon] PASSED [OpenEXI2Canon] PASSED [Specification reference] specification [Input file] file [Testcase description] Valid integer element value [Test case]

Output: | all | compression | builtinDatatypes | validDatatype | integerValid | integer-valid-04

EXI 1.0 (Second Edition): All interoperability tests


Input: [#] 1817 [Canon2OpenEXI] PASSED [EXIficient2OpenEXI] PASSED [Canon2EXIficient] PASSED [OpenEXI2EXIficient] PASSED [EXIficient2Canon] PASSED [OpenEXI2Canon] PASSED [Specification reference] specification [Input file] file [Testcase description] Valid integer element value [Test case]

Output: | all | compression | builtinDatatypes | validDatatype | integerValid | integer-valid-05

EXI 1.0 (Second Edition): All interoperability tests


Input: [#] 1818 [Canon2OpenEXI] PASSED [EXIficient2OpenEXI] PASSED [Canon2EXIficient] PASSED [OpenEXI2EXIficient] PASSED [EXIficient2Canon] PASSED [OpenEXI2Canon] PASSED [Specification reference] specification [Input file] file [Testcase description] Valid integer element value [Test case]

Output: | all | compression | builtinDatatypes | validDatatype | integerValid | integer-valid-06

EXI 1.0 (Second Edition): All interoperability tests


Input: [#] 1819 [Canon2OpenEXI] PASSED [EXIficient2OpenEXI] PASSED [Canon2EXIficient] PASSED [OpenEXI2EXIficient] PASSED [EXIficient2Canon] PASSED [OpenEXI2Canon] PASSED [Specification reference] specification [Input file] file [Testcase description] Valid integer element value [Test case]

Output: | all | compression | builtinDatatypes | validDatatype | integerValid | integer-valid-07

EXI 1.0 (Second Edition): All interoperability tests


Input: [#] 1820 [Canon2OpenEXI] PASSED [EXIficient2OpenEXI] PASSED [Canon2EXIficient] PASSED [OpenEXI2EXIficient] PASSED [EXIficient2Canon] PASSED [OpenEXI2Canon] PASSED [Specification reference] specification [Input file] file [Testcase description] Valid integer element value [Test case]

Output: | all | compression | builtinDatatypes | validDatatype | integerValid | integer-valid-08

EXI 1.0 (Second Edition): All interoperability tests


Input: [#] 1821 [Canon2OpenEXI] PASSED [EXIficient2OpenEXI] PASSED [Canon2EXIficient] PASSED [OpenEXI2EXIficient] PASSED [EXIficient2Canon] PASSED [OpenEXI2Canon] PASSED [Specification reference] specification [Input file] file [Testcase description] Valid integer element value [Test case]

Output: | all | compression | builtinDatatypes | validDatatype | integerValid | integer-valid-09

EXI 1.0 (Second Edition): All interoperability tests


Input: [#] 1822 [Canon2OpenEXI] PASSED [EXIficient2OpenEXI] PASSED [Canon2EXIficient] PASSED [OpenEXI2EXIficient] PASSED [EXIficient2Canon] PASSED [OpenEXI2Canon] PASSED [Specification reference] specification [Input file] file [Testcase description] Valid integer element value [Test case]

Output: | all | compression | builtinDatatypes | validDatatype | integerValid | integer-valid-10

EXI 1.0 (Second Edition): All interoperability tests


Input: [#] 1823 [Canon2OpenEXI] PASSED [EXIficient2OpenEXI] PASSED [Canon2EXIficient] PASSED [OpenEXI2EXIficient] PASSED [EXIficient2Canon] PASSED [OpenEXI2Canon] PASSED [Specification reference] specification [Input file] file [Testcase description] Char Class Lm - Unicode 3.1.0 value [Test case]

Output: | all | compression | builtinDatatypes | validDatatype | rcsEncoding | restrictedCharacterSets-charClassLm-00

EXI 1.0 (Second Edition): All interoperability tests


Input: [#] 1824 [Canon2OpenEXI] PASSED [EXIficient2OpenEXI] PASSED [Canon2EXIficient] PASSED [OpenEXI2EXIficient] PASSED [EXIficient2Canon] PASSED [OpenEXI2Canon] PASSED [Specification reference] specification [Input file] file [Testcase description] Char Class Lm - Unicode 3.2.0 value [Test case]

Output: | all | compression | builtinDatatypes | validDatatype | rcsEncoding | restrictedCharacterSets-charClassLm-01

EXI 1.0 (Second Edition): All interoperability tests


Input: [#] 1825 [Canon2OpenEXI] PASSED [EXIficient2OpenEXI] PASSED [Canon2EXIficient] PASSED [OpenEXI2EXIficient] PASSED [EXIficient2Canon] PASSED [OpenEXI2Canon] PASSED [Specification reference] specification [Input file] file [Testcase description] Char Class Lm - Unicode 6.0.0 value [Test case]

Output: | all | compression | builtinDatatypes | validDatatype | rcsEncoding | restrictedCharacterSets-charClassLm-02

EXI 1.0 (Second Edition): All interoperability tests


Input: [#] 1826 [Canon2OpenEXI] PASSED [EXIficient2OpenEXI] PASSED [Canon2EXIficient] PASSED [OpenEXI2EXIficient] PASSED [EXIficient2Canon] PASSED [OpenEXI2Canon] PASSED [Specification reference] specification [Input file] file [Testcase description] Char Class Lm - Invalid value [Test case]

Output: | all | compression | builtinDatatypes | validDatatype | rcsEncoding | restrictedCharacterSets-charClassLm-03

EXI 1.0 (Second Edition): All interoperability tests


Input: [#] 1827 [Canon2OpenEXI] PASSED [EXIficient2OpenEXI] PASSED [Canon2EXIficient] PASSED [OpenEXI2EXIficient] PASSED [EXIficient2Canon] PASSED [OpenEXI2Canon] PASSED [Specification reference] specification [Input file] file [Testcase description] Char Class Nd - valid [Test case]

Output: | all | compression | builtinDatatypes | validDatatype | rcsEncoding | restrictedCharacterSets-charClassNd-00

EXI 1.0 (Second Edition): All interoperability tests


Input: [#] 1828 [Canon2OpenEXI] PASSED [EXIficient2OpenEXI] PASSED [Canon2EXIficient] PASSED [OpenEXI2EXIficient] PASSED [EXIficient2Canon] PASSED [OpenEXI2Canon] PASSED [Specification reference] specification [Input file] file [Testcase description] Char Class Nd - valid [Test case]

Output: | all | compression | builtinDatatypes | validDatatype | rcsEncoding | restrictedCharacterSets-charClassNd-01

EXI 1.0 (Second Edition): All interoperability tests


Input: [#] 1829 [Canon2OpenEXI] PASSED [EXIficient2OpenEXI] PASSED [Canon2EXIficient] PASSED [OpenEXI2EXIficient] PASSED [EXIficient2Canon] PASSED [OpenEXI2Canon] PASSED [Specification reference] specification [Input file] file [Testcase description] Char Class Nd - invalid [Test case]

Output: | all | compression | builtinDatatypes | validDatatype | rcsEncoding | restrictedCharacterSets-charClassNd-02

EXI 1.0 (Second Edition): All interoperability tests


Input: [#] 1830 [Canon2OpenEXI] PASSED [EXIficient2OpenEXI] PASSED [Canon2EXIficient] PASSED [OpenEXI2EXIficient] PASSED [EXIficient2Canon] PASSED [OpenEXI2Canon] PASSED [Specification reference] specification [Input file] file [Testcase description] Simple range - valid [Test case]

Output: | all | compression | builtinDatatypes | validDatatype | rcsEncoding | restrictedCharacterSets-range1-00

EXI 1.0 (Second Edition): All interoperability tests


Input: [#] 1831 [Canon2OpenEXI] PASSED [EXIficient2OpenEXI] PASSED [Canon2EXIficient] PASSED [OpenEXI2EXIficient] PASSED [EXIficient2Canon] PASSED [OpenEXI2Canon] PASSED [Specification reference] specification [Input file] file [Testcase description] Simple range - outside ranage value [Test case]

Output: | all | compression | builtinDatatypes | validDatatype | rcsEncoding | restrictedCharacterSets-range1-01

EXI 1.0 (Second Edition): All interoperability tests


Input: [#] 1832 [Canon2OpenEXI] PASSED [EXIficient2OpenEXI] PASSED [Canon2EXIficient] PASSED [OpenEXI2EXIficient] PASSED [EXIficient2Canon] PASSED [OpenEXI2Canon] PASSED [Specification reference] specification [Test case]

Output: | all | compression | builtinDatatypes | validDatatype | rcsEncoding | restrictedCharacterSets-range2-00

EXI 1.0 (Second Edition): All interoperability tests


Input: [Event Name] dragstart [Target] Source node [Bubbles?] ✓ Bubbles [Cancelable?] ✓ Cancelable [dataTransfer] Contains source node unless a selection is being dragged, in which case it is empty [effectAllowed] uninitialized [dropEffect] none [Default Action]

Output: Initiate the drag-and-drop operation


Input: [Event Name] drag [Target] Source node [Bubbles?] ✓ Bubbles [Cancelable?] ✓ Cancelable [dataTransfer] Empty [effectAllowed] Same as last event [dropEffect] none [Default Action]

Output: Continue the drag-and-drop operation


Input: [Event Name] dragenter [Target] Immediate user selection or the body element [Bubbles?] ✓ Bubbles [Cancelable?] ✓ Cancelable [dataTransfer] Empty [effectAllowed] Same as last event [dropEffect] Based on effectAllowed value [Default Action]

Output: Reject immediate user selection as potential target element


Input: [Event Name] dragleave [Target] Previous target element [Bubbles?] ✓ Bubbles [Cancelable?] — [dataTransfer] Empty [effectAllowed] Same as last event [dropEffect] none [Default Action]


Input: [Event Name] dragover [Target] Current target element [Bubbles?] ✓ Bubbles [Cancelable?] ✓ Cancelable [dataTransfer] Empty [effectAllowed] Same as last event [dropEffect] Based on effectAllowed value [Default Action]

Output: Reset the current drag operation to "none"


Input: [Event Name] drop [Target] Current target element [Bubbles?] ✓ Bubbles [Cancelable?] ✓ Cancelable [dataTransfer] getData() returns data set in dragstart event [effectAllowed] Same as last event [dropEffect] Current drag operation [Default Action]

Output: Varies


Input: [Event Name] dragend [Target] Source node [Bubbles?] ✓ Bubbles [Cancelable?] — [dataTransfer] Empty [effectAllowed] Same as last event [dropEffect] Current drag operation [Default Action]

Output: Varies


Input: [ID] 4 [Commenter] Detlev Fisher [Location] 3.1.4 Step 1.d: Define the Context of Website Use- Requirement 1.d [Status] Closed [Priority] Medium [Rationale] The term "software support" is undefined [Resolution] 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. [Current Text]

Output: "...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."

Disposition of Comments from Eval TF Review - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 30 July 2012

Listing of the comments for Section 3 - Conformance Evaluation Procedure and their proposed resolutions


Input: [ID] 5 [Commenter] Detlev Fisher [Location] 3.1.4 Step 1.d: Define the Context of Website Use- Requirement 1.d [Status] Closed [Priority] Medium [Rationale] There is a lack of guidance on how to define the minimum set of web browsers and assistive technology [Resolution] 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. [Current Text]

Output: "...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."

Disposition of Comments from Eval TF Review - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 30 July 2012


Input: [ID] 6 [Commenter] Detlev Fisher [Location] 3.1.4 Step 1.d: Define the Context of Website Use- Requirement 1.d [Status] Closed [Priority] Medium [Rationale] the term "tools" is ambiguous [Resolution] 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. [Current Text]

Output: "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."

Disposition of Comments from Eval TF Review - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 30 July 2012


Input: [ID] 7 [Commenter] Detlev Fisher [Location] 3.1.4 Step 1.d: Define the Context of Website Use- Requirement 1.d [Status] Closed [Priority] Medium [Rationale] Suggest a minimum baseline of web browsers [Resolution] 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. [Current Text]

Output: "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."

Disposition of Comments from Eval TF Review - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 30 July 2012


Input: [ID] 8 [Commenter] Detlev Fisher [Location] 3.1.4 Step 1.d: Define the Context of Website Use- Requirement 1.d [Status] Closed [Priority] Medium [Rationale] Require that the defined set of assistive technology are used comprehensively throughout the evaluation [Resolution] Resolution: No change. Rationale: This is emphasized in the third paragraph of this section and in the first of section 3.4.1 [Current Text]

Output: "...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."

Disposition of Comments from Eval TF Review - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 30 July 2012


Input: [ID] 9a [Commenter] Richard Warren and Kerstin Probiesch (in questionnaire) [Location] 3.1.5 Step 1.e: Define the Techniques to be Used (Optional) [Status] Closed [Priority] High [Suggested Change] This section requires completely rewriting to make it clear we are talking about the evaluation techniques not the web-design techniques. [Rationale] 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] 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. [Current Text]

Output: Entire section

Disposition of Comments from Eval TF Review - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 30 July 2012


Input: [ID] 9b [Commenter] Richard Warren and Kerstin Probiesch (in questionnaire) [Location] 3.1.5 Step 1.e: Define the Techniques to be Used (Optional) [Status] Closed [Priority] High [Suggested Change] Describe the various tools and techniques that will be employed when conducting this evaluation. [Rationale] 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] 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. [Current Text]

Output: Entire section

Disposition of Comments from Eval TF Review - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 30 July 2012


Input: [ID] 9c [Commenter] Richard Warren and Kerstin Probiesch (in questionnaire) [Location] 3.1.5 Step 1.e: Define the Techniques to be Used (Optional) [Status] Closed [Priority] High [Suggested Change] This section [...] should not be optional. [Rationale] 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] 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. [Current Text]

Output: Entire section

Disposition of Comments from Eval TF Review - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 30 July 2012


Input: [ID] 12 [Commenter] Martijn Houtepen (in questionnaire) [Location] 3.2 Step 2: Explore the Target Website [Status] Closed [Priority] Editorial [Suggested Change] Carrying out initial cursory checks during this stage helps identify web pages that are relevant for more detailed evaluation later on. [Rationale] The word 'already' seems superfluous [Resolution] Resolution: Change as suggested Rationale: The word 'already' is superfluous [Current Text]

Output: Carrying out initial cursory checks during this stage already helps identify web pages that are relevant for more detailed evaluation later on.

Disposition of Comments from Eval TF Review - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 30 July 2012


Input: [ID] 13a [Commenter] Detlev Fisher [Location] 3.2.1 Step 2.a: Identify Key Web Pages of the Website - Requirement 2.a [Status] Closed [Priority] Medium [Suggested Change] Remove references to "template" [Rationale] 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] 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 [Current Text]

Output: Entire section, possibly also other sections such as 3.3.1 Step 3.a

Disposition of Comments from Eval TF Review - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 30 July 2012


Input: [ID] 13b [Commenter] Detlev Fisher Kathleen Wahlbin (in questionnaire) [Location] 3.2.1 Step 2.a: Identify Key Web Pages of the Website - Requirement 2.a [Status] Closed [Priority] Medium [Suggested Change] Add "page states" [Rationale] I have added 'page states' as important parts of the sample [...] Page states is just as important as common webpages and templates [Resolution] 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 [Current Text]

Output: Entire section, possibly also other sections such as 3.3.1 Step 3.a

Disposition of Comments from Eval TF Review - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 30 July 2012


Input: [ID] 17 [Commenter] Detlev Fisher Kathleen Wahlbin (in questionnaire) [Location] 3.3.2 Step 3.b: Include Exemplar Instances of Web Pages - Requirement 3b [Status] Closed [Priority] Medium [Suggested Change] 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) [Rationale] 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] 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 [Current Text]

Output: 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.

Disposition of Comments from Eval TF Review - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 30 July 2012


Input: [ID] 18 [Commenter] Detlev Fisher [Location] 3.3.4 Step 3.d: Include Complete Processes in the Sample [Status] Closed [Priority] High [Suggested Change] 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." [Rationale] Evaluating many near-identical process pages would be a waste of time. [Resolution] 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. [Current Text]

Output: 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.

Disposition of Comments from Eval TF Review - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 30 July 2012


Input: [ID] 19 [Commenter] Richard Warren and Kerstin Probiesch (in questionnaire) [Location] 3.4 Step 4: Audit the Selected Sample [Status] Closed [Priority] High [Suggested Change] Title should read 'Audit the site or the selected sample'. Change also every reference to this section in other sections. [Rationale] We agreed that full audits were the default position [Resolution] 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. [Current Text]

Output: Audit the Selected Sample

Disposition of Comments from Eval TF Review - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 30 July 2012


Input: [ID] 20 [Commenter] Detlev Fisher [Location] 3.4 Step 4: Audit the Selected Sample - Note [Status] Closed [Priority] High [Suggested Change] 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. [Rationale] I would argue that the assessment of WCAG SC should be carried out for each page in the sample [...] [Resolution] 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" [Current Text]

Output: Note at the end of the section

Disposition of Comments from Eval TF Review - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 30 July 2012


Input: [ID] 21 [Commenter] Richard Warren (in questionnaire) [Location] 3.4 Step 4: Audit the Selected Sample - The penultimate sentence of the Note: for step 4 [Status] Closed [Priority] High [Suggested Change] 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." [Rationale] 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] Resolution: Change as suggested Rationale: Clarifies the intended meaning [Current Text]

Output: evaluator may not need to continue to identify successes and failures in meeting the conformance target for each web page.

Disposition of Comments from Eval TF Review - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 30 July 2012


Input: [ID] 22 [Commenter] Detlev Fisher Aurélien Levy (in questionnaire) [Location] 3.4 Step 4a: Check for the Broadest Variety of Use Cases - Requirement 4.a, Note 1 [Status] Closed [Priority] High [Suggested Change] 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. [Rationale] 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. [Resolution] 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' [Current Text]

Output: Note: According to WCAG 2.0, Success Criteria that do not apply to the content are deemed to have been met.

Disposition of Comments from Eval TF Review - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 30 July 2012


Input: [ID] 24 [Commenter] Detlev Fisher [Location] 3.4 Step 4a: Check for the Broadest Variety of Use Cases - Requirement 4.a, Note 2 [Status] Closed [Priority] Medium [Suggested Change] "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." [Rationale] 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] 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 [Current Text]

Output: Second Note (at the end of the section)

Disposition of Comments from Eval TF Review - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 30 July 2012


Input: [ID] 25 [Commenter] Kerstin Probiesch and Aurélien Levy (in questionnaire) [Location] 3.4.2 Step 4.b: Use WCAG 2.0 Techniques Where Possible [Status] Closed [Priority] High [Suggested Change] Use WCAG 2.0 Techniques test procedure Where Possible (optional) [Rationale] 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] Resolution: Add "(Optional)" to the current title Rationale: It is understood that the use of techniques is optional [Current Text]

Output: Use WCAG 2.0 Techniques Where Possible

Disposition of Comments from Eval TF Review - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 30 July 2012


Input: [ID] 26 [Commenter] Richard Warren (in questionnaire) [Location] 3.4.2 Step 4.b: Use WCAG 2.0 Techniques Where Possible- Requirement 4.b [Status] Closed [Priority] High [Suggested Change] 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." [Rationale] 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] 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 [Current Text]

Output: 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."

Disposition of Comments from Eval TF Review - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 30 July 2012


Input: [ID] 27 [Commenter] Kerstin Probiesch (in questionnaire) [Location] 3.4.2 Step 4.b: Use WCAG 2.0 Techniques Where Possible- Requirement 4b [Status] Closed [Priority] High [Rationale] 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] Resolution: No change Rationale: A single technique may not necessarily *imply* success or failure. However, techniques in general (plural) help *demonstrate* conformance (or failure) [Current Text]

Output: 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.

Disposition of Comments from Eval TF Review - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 30 July 2012


Input: [ID] 28 [Commenter] Kerstin Probiesch (in questionnaire) [Location] 3.4.2 Step 4.b: Use WCAG 2.0 Techniques Where Possible- Requirement 4b [Status] Closed [Priority] High [Suggested Change] Rewrite the sentence and the section and make it optional. [Rationale] The sentence is unclear. Reason: there is no way to build a web page without using techniques. [Resolution] 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 [Current Text]

Output: In this case the evaluator must determine whether the WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria are met without the use of techniques.

Disposition of Comments from Eval TF Review - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 30 July 2012


Input: [ID] 29 [Commenter] Detlev Fisher [Location] 3.4.2 Step 4.b: Use WCAG 2.0 Techniques Where Possible- Requirement 4b, first bullet point [Status] Closed [Priority] Medium [Suggested Change] Complete rewording provided in the comment [Rationale] Several rationale provided in the comment [Resolution] 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 [Current Text]

Output: Second paragraph, including bullet list

Disposition of Comments from Eval TF Review - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 30 July 2012


Input: [ID] 30 [Commenter] Detlev Fisher [Location] 3.4.2 Step 4.b: Use WCAG 2.0 Techniques Where Possible- Requirement 4b, end of last but one paragraph [Status] Closed [Priority] Mild [Suggested Change] Delete the sentence. [Rationale] 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] Resolution: Removed as suggested Rationale: Agreement with the rationale provided Note: See also the changes to this sectuib in response to Comment #29 [Current Text]

Output: 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.

Disposition of Comments from Eval TF Review - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 30 July 2012


Input: [ID] 31 [Commenter] Richard Warren (in questionnaire) [Location] 3.4.3 Step 4.c: Assess Accessibility Support for Technologies - Requirement 4c [Status] Closed [Priority] High [Suggested Change] 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:". [Rationale] 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] Resolution: Changed as suggested Rationale: Clarifies the intended meaning [Current Text]

Output: 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:.

Disposition of Comments from Eval TF Review - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 30 July 2012


Input: [ID] 32 [Commenter] Aurélien Levy (in questionnaire) [Location] 3.5.2 Step 5.b: Provide an Accessibility Statement (Optional) [Status] Closed [Priority] High [Suggested Change] 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 [Rationale] Why 10 days? In some situations it can take longer to get something fixed on some big corporate or ministerial website. [Resolution] 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 [Current Text]

Output: The website owner commits to removing any valid issues known to them within 10 business days;

Disposition of Comments from Eval TF Review - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 30 July 2012


Input: [Property] additionalType [Description] An additional type for the item, typically used for adding more specific types from external vocabularies in microdata syntax. [Expected Type]

Output: URL


Input: [Property] description [Description] A short description of the entry. [Expected Type]

Output: Text


Input: [Property] image [Description] URL of an image of the entry. [Expected Type]

Output: URL


Input: [Property] name [Description] The name of the entry. [Expected Type]

Output: Text


Input: [Property] url [Description] URL of the entry. [Expected Type]

Output: URL


Input: [Property] alternativeHeadline [Description] A secondary title of the entry. [Expected Type]

Output: Text


Input: [Property] inLanguage [Description] The language of the content. Please use one of the language codes from the IETF BCP 47 standard. [Expected Type]

Output: Language


Input: [Property] dateCreated [Description] The date on which the content was created (in ISO 8601 date format). [Expected Type]

Output: Date


Input: [Property] dateModified [Description] The date on which the content was most recently modified (in ISO 8601 date format). [Expected Type]

Output: Date


Input: [Property] keywords [Description] The keywords/tags used to describe this content. [Expected Type]

Output: Text


Input: [Property] provider [Description] Specifies the person or organization that distributed the content. [Expected Type]

Output: Person or Organization


Input: [Property] breadcrumb [Description] A set of links that can help a user understand and navigate a website hierarchy. [Expected Type]

Output: Text


Input: [Property] entryID [Description] The identifier of the entry. [Expected Type]

Output: Text


Input: [Property] isEntryOf [Description] Indicates the database to which the entry belongs. [Expected Type]

Output: BiologicalDatabase


Input: [Property] taxon [Description] The taxonomy information of the entry. [Expected Type]

Output: BiologicalDatabaseEntry or Text


Input: [Property] seeAlso [Description] Reference to another resource. [Expected Type]

Output: BiologicalDatabaseEntry or URL


Input: [Property] reference [Description] The identifier of the reference, such as PMID, DOI, and PMCID. For example: . If the reference doesn't have ID, use URL. For example: . [Expected Type]

Output: Text or URL


Input: [Attribute Type] CDATA [Definition]

Output: Character data


Input: [Attribute Type] ID [Definition]

Output: A document-unique identifier


Input: [Attribute Type] IDREF [Definition]

Output: A reference to a document-unique identifier


Input: [Attribute Type] IDREFS [Definition]

Output: A space-separated list of references to document-unique identifiers


Input: [Attribute Type] NAME [Definition]

Output: A name with the same character constraints as ID above


Input: [Attribute Type] NMTOKEN [Definition]

Output: A name composed of only name tokens as defined in XML 1.0 [XML].


Input: [Attribute Type] NMTOKENS [Definition]

Output: One or more white space separated NMTOKEN values


Input: [Attribute Type] PCDATA [Definition]

Output: Processed character data


Input: [ID] 4 [Commenter] Detlev Fisher [Location] 3.1.4 Step 1.d: Define the Context of Website Use- Requirement 1.d [Status] Closed [Priority] Medium [Current Text] "...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." [Resolution] 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. [Rationale]

Output: The term "software support" is undefined

Disposition of Comments from Eval TF Review - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 30 July 2012


Input: [ID] 5 [Commenter] Detlev Fisher [Location] 3.1.4 Step 1.d: Define the Context of Website Use- Requirement 1.d [Status] Closed [Priority] Medium [Current Text] "...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." [Resolution] 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. [Rationale]

Output: There is a lack of guidance on how to define the minimum set of web browsers and assistive technology

Disposition of Comments from Eval TF Review - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 30 July 2012


Input: [ID] 6 [Commenter] Detlev Fisher [Location] 3.1.4 Step 1.d: Define the Context of Website Use- Requirement 1.d [Status] Closed [Priority] Medium [Current Text] "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." [Resolution] 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. [Rationale]

Output: the term "tools" is ambiguous

Disposition of Comments from Eval TF Review - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 30 July 2012


Input: [ID] 7 [Commenter] Detlev Fisher [Location] 3.1.4 Step 1.d: Define the Context of Website Use- Requirement 1.d [Status] Closed [Priority] Medium [Current Text] "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." [Resolution] 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. [Rationale]

Output: Suggest a minimum baseline of web browsers

Disposition of Comments from Eval TF Review - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 30 July 2012


Input: [ID] 8 [Commenter] Detlev Fisher [Location] 3.1.4 Step 1.d: Define the Context of Website Use- Requirement 1.d [Status] Closed [Priority] Medium [Current Text] "...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." [Resolution] Resolution: No change. Rationale: This is emphasized in the third paragraph of this section and in the first of section 3.4.1 [Rationale]

Output: Require that the defined set of assistive technology are used comprehensively throughout the evaluation

Disposition of Comments from Eval TF Review - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 30 July 2012


Input: [ID] 9a [Commenter] Richard Warren and Kerstin Probiesch (in questionnaire) [Location] 3.1.5 Step 1.e: Define the Techniques to be Used (Optional) [Status] Closed [Priority] High [Current Text] Entire section [Suggested Change] This section requires completely rewriting to make it clear we are talking about the evaluation techniques not the web-design techniques. [Resolution] 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. [Rationale]

Output: 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.

Disposition of Comments from Eval TF Review - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 30 July 2012


Input: [ID] 9b [Commenter] Richard Warren and Kerstin Probiesch (in questionnaire) [Location] 3.1.5 Step 1.e: Define the Techniques to be Used (Optional) [Status] Closed [Priority] High [Current Text] Entire section [Suggested Change] Describe the various tools and techniques that will be employed when conducting this evaluation. [Resolution] 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. [Rationale]

Output: 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.

Disposition of Comments from Eval TF Review - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 30 July 2012


Input: [ID] 9c [Commenter] Richard Warren and Kerstin Probiesch (in questionnaire) [Location] 3.1.5 Step 1.e: Define the Techniques to be Used (Optional) [Status] Closed [Priority] High [Current Text] Entire section [Suggested Change] This section [...] should not be optional. [Resolution] 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. [Rationale]

Output: 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.

Disposition of Comments from Eval TF Review - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 30 July 2012


Input: [ID] 10 [Commenter] Kathleen Wahlbin (in questionnaire) [Location] 3.1.5 Step 1.e: Define the Techniques to be Used (Optional) [Status] Closed [Priority] Medium [Suggested Change] Add information about sufficient vs advisory techniques [Resolution] 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. [Rationale]

Output: 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

Disposition of Comments from Eval TF Review - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 30 July 2012


Input: [ID] 11a [Commenter] Richard Warren (in questionnaire) [Location] 3.2 Step 2: Explore the Target Website [Status] Closed [Priority] High [Suggested Change] Separate 1st paraghraph into two [Resolution] Resolution: Change as suggested Rationale: The paragraph makes two distinct points [Rationale]

Output: 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.

Disposition of Comments from Eval TF Review - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 30 July 2012


Input: [ID] 11b [Commenter] Richard Warren (in questionnaire) [Location] 3.2 Step 2: Explore the Target Website [Status] Closed [Priority] High [Suggested Change] Add "purpose" to the first sentence [Resolution] Resolution: Change as suggested Rationale: The purpose of the website should indeed be confirmed in this step [Rationale]

Output: 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 [...]

Disposition of Comments from Eval TF Review - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 30 July 2012


Input: [ID] 11c [Commenter] Richard Warren (in questionnaire) [Location] 3.2 Step 2: Explore the Target Website [Status] Closed [Priority] High [Suggested Change] 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 [Resolution] Resolution: Change to "for more detailed evaluation later on" Rationale: Not crucial to relate this aspect to sampling Also see commment ID14 [Rationale]

Output: 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 [...]

Disposition of Comments from Eval TF Review - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 30 July 2012


Input: [ID] 12 [Commenter] Martijn Houtepen (in questionnaire) [Location] 3.2 Step 2: Explore the Target Website [Status] Closed [Priority] Editorial [Current Text] Carrying out initial cursory checks during this stage already helps identify web pages that are relevant for more detailed evaluation later on. [Suggested Change] Carrying out initial cursory checks during this stage helps identify web pages that are relevant for more detailed evaluation later on. [Resolution] Resolution: Change as suggested Rationale: The word 'already' is superfluous [Rationale]

Output: The word 'already' seems superfluous

Disposition of Comments from Eval TF Review - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 30 July 2012


Input: [ID] 13a [Commenter] Detlev Fisher [Location] 3.2.1 Step 2.a: Identify Key Web Pages of the Website - Requirement 2.a [Status] Closed [Priority] Medium [Current Text] Entire section, possibly also other sections such as 3.3.1 Step 3.a [Suggested Change] Remove references to "template" [Resolution] 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 [Rationale]

Output: 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 [...]

Disposition of Comments from Eval TF Review - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 30 July 2012


Input: [ID] 13b [Commenter] Detlev Fisher Kathleen Wahlbin (in questionnaire) [Location] 3.2.1 Step 2.a: Identify Key Web Pages of the Website - Requirement 2.a [Status] Closed [Priority] Medium [Current Text] Entire section, possibly also other sections such as 3.3.1 Step 3.a [Suggested Change] Add "page states" [Resolution] 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 [Rationale]

Output: I have added 'page states' as important parts of the sample [...] Page states is just as important as common webpages and templates

Disposition of Comments from Eval TF Review - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 30 July 2012


Input: [ID] 14 [Commenter] Richard Warren, Kerstin Probiesch, and Kathleen Wahlbin (in questionnaire) [Location] 3.3 Step 3: Select a Representative Sample [Status] Closed [Priority] High [Suggested Change] This section should be optional and requires an introductory paragraph to explain why sampling might be required. [Resolution] 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 [Rationale]

Output: 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.

Disposition of Comments from Eval TF Review - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 30 July 2012


Input: [ID] 17 [Commenter] Detlev Fisher Kathleen Wahlbin (in questionnaire) [Location] 3.3.2 Step 3.b: Include Exemplar Instances of Web Pages - Requirement 3b [Status] Closed [Priority] Medium [Current Text] 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. [Suggested Change] 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) [Resolution] 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 [Rationale]

Output: 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.

Disposition of Comments from Eval TF Review - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 30 July 2012


Input: [ID] 18 [Commenter] Detlev Fisher [Location] 3.3.4 Step 3.d: Include Complete Processes in the Sample [Status] Closed [Priority] High [Current Text] 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. [Suggested Change] 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." [Resolution] 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. [Rationale]

Output: Evaluating many near-identical process pages would be a waste of time.

Disposition of Comments from Eval TF Review - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 30 July 2012


Input: [ID] 19 [Commenter] Richard Warren and Kerstin Probiesch (in questionnaire) [Location] 3.4 Step 4: Audit the Selected Sample [Status] Closed [Priority] High [Current Text] Audit the Selected Sample [Suggested Change] Title should read 'Audit the site or the selected sample'. Change also every reference to this section in other sections. [Resolution] 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. [Rationale]

Output: We agreed that full audits were the default position

Disposition of Comments from Eval TF Review - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 30 July 2012


Input: [ID] 20 [Commenter] Detlev Fisher [Location] 3.4 Step 4: Audit the Selected Sample - Note [Status] Closed [Priority] High [Current Text] Note at the end of the section [Suggested Change] 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. [Resolution] 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" [Rationale]

Output: I would argue that the assessment of WCAG SC should be carried out for each page in the sample [...]

Disposition of Comments from Eval TF Review - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 30 July 2012


Input: [ID] 21 [Commenter] Richard Warren (in questionnaire) [Location] 3.4 Step 4: Audit the Selected Sample - The penultimate sentence of the Note: for step 4 [Status] Closed [Priority] High [Current Text] evaluator may not need to continue to identify successes and failures in meeting the conformance target for each web page. [Suggested Change] 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." [Resolution] Resolution: Change as suggested Rationale: Clarifies the intended meaning [Rationale]

Output: 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.

Disposition of Comments from Eval TF Review - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 30 July 2012


Input: [ID] 22 [Commenter] Detlev Fisher Aurélien Levy (in questionnaire) [Location] 3.4 Step 4a: Check for the Broadest Variety of Use Cases - Requirement 4.a, Note 1 [Status] Closed [Priority] High [Current Text] Note: According to WCAG 2.0, Success Criteria that do not apply to the content are deemed to have been met. [Suggested Change] 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. [Resolution] 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' [Rationale]

Output: 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.

Disposition of Comments from Eval TF Review - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 30 July 2012


Input: [ID] 24 [Commenter] Detlev Fisher [Location] 3.4 Step 4a: Check for the Broadest Variety of Use Cases - Requirement 4.a, Note 2 [Status] Closed [Priority] Medium [Current Text] Second Note (at the end of the section) [Suggested Change] "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." [Resolution] 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 [Rationale]

Output: 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.

Disposition of Comments from Eval TF Review - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 30 July 2012


Input: [ID] 25 [Commenter] Kerstin Probiesch and Aurélien Levy (in questionnaire) [Location] 3.4.2 Step 4.b: Use WCAG 2.0 Techniques Where Possible [Status] Closed [Priority] High [Current Text] Use WCAG 2.0 Techniques Where Possible [Suggested Change] Use WCAG 2.0 Techniques test procedure Where Possible (optional) [Resolution] Resolution: Add "(Optional)" to the current title Rationale: It is understood that the use of techniques is optional [Rationale]

Output: 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

Disposition of Comments from Eval TF Review - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 30 July 2012


Input: [ID] 26 [Commenter] Richard Warren (in questionnaire) [Location] 3.4.2 Step 4.b: Use WCAG 2.0 Techniques Where Possible- Requirement 4.b [Status] Closed [Priority] High [Current Text] 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." [Suggested Change] 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." [Resolution] 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 [Rationale]

Output: 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.

Disposition of Comments from Eval TF Review - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 30 July 2012


Input: [ID] 27 [Commenter] Kerstin Probiesch (in questionnaire) [Location] 3.4.2 Step 4.b: Use WCAG 2.0 Techniques Where Possible- Requirement 4b [Status] Closed [Priority] High [Current Text] 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. [Resolution] Resolution: No change Rationale: A single technique may not necessarily *imply* success or failure. However, techniques in general (plural) help *demonstrate* conformance (or failure) [Rationale]

Output: 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. "

Disposition of Comments from Eval TF Review - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 30 July 2012


Input: [ID] 28 [Commenter] Kerstin Probiesch (in questionnaire) [Location] 3.4.2 Step 4.b: Use WCAG 2.0 Techniques Where Possible- Requirement 4b [Status] Closed [Priority] High [Current Text] In this case the evaluator must determine whether the WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria are met without the use of techniques. [Suggested Change] Rewrite the sentence and the section and make it optional. [Resolution] 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 [Rationale]

Output: The sentence is unclear. Reason: there is no way to build a web page without using techniques.

Disposition of Comments from Eval TF Review - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 30 July 2012


Input: [ID] 29 [Commenter] Detlev Fisher [Location] 3.4.2 Step 4.b: Use WCAG 2.0 Techniques Where Possible- Requirement 4b, first bullet point [Status] Closed [Priority] Medium [Current Text] Second paragraph, including bullet list [Suggested Change] Complete rewording provided in the comment [Resolution] 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 [Rationale]

Output: Several rationale provided in the comment

Disposition of Comments from Eval TF Review - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 30 July 2012


Input: [ID] 30 [Commenter] Detlev Fisher [Location] 3.4.2 Step 4.b: Use WCAG 2.0 Techniques Where Possible- Requirement 4b, end of last but one paragraph [Status] Closed [Priority] Mild [Current Text] 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. [Suggested Change] Delete the sentence. [Resolution] Resolution: Removed as suggested Rationale: Agreement with the rationale provided Note: See also the changes to this sectuib in response to Comment #29 [Rationale]

Output: 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' [...]

Disposition of Comments from Eval TF Review - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 30 July 2012


Input: [ID] 31 [Commenter] Richard Warren (in questionnaire) [Location] 3.4.3 Step 4.c: Assess Accessibility Support for Technologies - Requirement 4c [Status] Closed [Priority] High [Current Text] 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:. [Suggested Change] 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:". [Resolution] Resolution: Changed as suggested Rationale: Clarifies the intended meaning [Rationale]

Output: 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 ?

Disposition of Comments from Eval TF Review - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 30 July 2012


Input: [ID] 32 [Commenter] Aurélien Levy (in questionnaire) [Location] 3.5.2 Step 5.b: Provide an Accessibility Statement (Optional) [Status] Closed [Priority] High [Current Text] The website owner commits to removing any valid issues known to them within 10 business days; [Suggested Change] 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 [Resolution] 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 [Rationale]

Output: Why 10 days? In some situations it can take longer to get something fixed on some big corporate or ministerial website.

Disposition of Comments from Eval TF Review - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 30 July 2012


Input: [P#] 1 [Grade] C [Comment]

Output: It has a lot of really good information but it is hard to get to and decipher.


Input: [P#] 2 [Grade] B-/C+ [Comment]

Output: All the information was there, but it was hard to follow on some topics. Also, depending on the audience, if you are gearing towards developers, then I would look for keywords specific to developing sites. It needs keywords, instead of leafing through the whole site.


Input: [P#] 3 [Grade] C [Comment]

Output: It is hard to navigate, words are repeated over and over. I feel al little bit frustrated navigating it. I feel like I went in circles. There was no easy way to get home.


Input: [P#] 4 [Grade] B+ [Comment]

Output: I think it covers everything that I want to know. It has good content. It suffers from not using enough color for navigation. Navigation on this site is often different from 99% of what you see out there.


Input: [P#] 5 [Grade] C [Comment]

Output: The interior and guts they haven't modified much. It feels like the page gets developed as information becomes developed. The overall site is not taken into consideration. There's too much information. There's so much of 'this is our news' 'this is how we put stuff together,' and not 'this is what we have for you.'


Input: [P#] 6 [Grade] C [Comment]

Output: Depending on the topic, some is written well for people outside of the technical realm, but once I get to the W3C guidelines it gets confusing.


Input: [P#] 7 [Grade] B [Comment]

Output: (No comment)


Input: [P#] 8 [Grade] B [Comment]

Output: I do listen to the entire page normally, but I think things could have been organized better. It would be easier for a screen reader if you didn't have to read through everything and instead have the meat of the stuff first.


Input: [Identifier] acceptTracking [Semantics] The Assigner requires that the Assignee(s) accepts that the use of the Asset may be tracked [Comment]

Output: The collected information may be tracked by the Assigner, or may link to a Party with the role function “trackingParty”.

ODRL Version 2.1 Common Vocabulary | ODRL Community Group

Table 2.2.2: Terms for entity Action used with Duty


Input: [Identifier] attribute [Semantics] The Assigner requires that the Assignee(s) attributes the Asset to the Assigner or an attributed Party. [Comment]

Output: May link to an Asset with the attribution information. May link to a Party with the role function “attributedParty”.

ODRL Version 2.1 Common Vocabulary | ODRL Community Group


Input: [Identifier] compensate [Semantics] The Assigner requires that the Assignee(s) compensates the Assigner (or other specified compensation Party) by some amount of value, if defined, for use of the Asset. [Comment]

Output: The compensation may use different types of things with a value: – the thing is expressed by the value (term) of the Constraint name – the value is expressed by operator, rightOperand, dataType and unit

ODRL Version 2.1 Common Vocabulary | ODRL Community Group


Input: [Identifier] delete [Semantics] The Assigner requires that the Assignee(s) permanently removes all copies of the Asset. [Comment]

Output: Use a constraint to define under which conditions the Asset should be deleted.

ODRL Version 2.1 Common Vocabulary | ODRL Community Group


Input: [Identifier] include [Semantics] The Assigner requires that the Assignee(s) include(s) other related assets in the Asset. [Comment]

Output: For example; Bio picture must be included in the attribution. Use of the Asset relation attribute is required

ODRL Version 2.1 Common Vocabulary | ODRL Community Group


Input: [Identifier] inform [Semantics] The Assigner requires that the Assignee(s) inform(s) the Assigner or an informed Party that an action has been performed on or in relation to the Asset. [Comment]

Output: May link to a Party with the role function “informedParty”.

ODRL Version 2.1 Common Vocabulary | ODRL Community Group


Input: [Identifier] obtainConsent [Semantics] The Assigner requires that the Assignee(s) obtains explicit consent from the Assigner or a consenting Party to perform the requested action in relation to the Asset. [Comment]

Output: Used as a Duty to ensure that the Assigner or a Party is authorized to approve such actions on a case-by-case basis. May link to a Party with the role function “consentingParty”.

ODRL Version 2.1 Common Vocabulary | ODRL Community Group


Input: [Identifier] reviewPolicy [Semantics] The Assigner requires that the Assignee(s) has(ve) a person review the Policy applicable to the Asset. [Comment]

Output: Used when human intervention is required to review the Policy. May link to an Asset which represents the full Policy information.

ODRL Version 2.1 Common Vocabulary | ODRL Community Group


Input: [Identifier] uninstall [Semantics] The Assigner requires that the Assignee(s) unload(s) and delete(s) the computer program Asset from a storage device and disable(s) its readiness for operation. [Comment]

Output: The Asset is no longer accessible to the Assignee(s).

ODRL Version 2.1 Common Vocabulary | ODRL Community Group


Input: [Identifier] watermark [Semantics] The Assigner requires that the Assignee(s) apply(ies) a watermark as provided by the Assigner to the Asset. [Comment]

Output: It is recommended to embed a link to the watermark.

ODRL Version 2.1 Common Vocabulary | ODRL Community Group


Input: [Event Name] dragstart [Target] Source node [Bubbles?] ✓ Bubbles [Cancelable?] ✓ Cancelable [effectAllowed] uninitialized [dropEffect] none [Default Action] Initiate the drag-and-drop operation [dataTransfer]

Output: Contains source node unless a selection is being dragged, in which case it is empty


Input: [Event Name] drag [Target] Source node [Bubbles?] ✓ Bubbles [Cancelable?] ✓ Cancelable [effectAllowed] Same as last event [dropEffect] none [Default Action] Continue the drag-and-drop operation [dataTransfer]

Output: Empty


Input: [Event Name] dragenter [Target] Immediate user selection or the body element [Bubbles?] ✓ Bubbles [Cancelable?] ✓ Cancelable [effectAllowed] Same as last event [dropEffect] Based on effectAllowed value [Default Action] Reject immediate user selection as potential target element [dataTransfer]

Output: Empty


Input: [Event Name] dragleave [Target] Previous target element [Bubbles?] ✓ Bubbles [Cancelable?] — [effectAllowed] Same as last event [dropEffect] none [Default Action] None [dataTransfer]

Output: Empty


Input: [Event Name] dragover [Target] Current target element [Bubbles?] ✓ Bubbles [Cancelable?] ✓ Cancelable [effectAllowed] Same as last event [dropEffect] Based on effectAllowed value [Default Action] Reset the current drag operation to "none" [dataTransfer]

Output: Empty


Input: [Event Name] drop [Target] Current target element [Bubbles?] ✓ Bubbles [Cancelable?] ✓ Cancelable [effectAllowed] Same as last event [dropEffect] Current drag operation [Default Action] Varies [dataTransfer]

Output: getData() returns data set in dragstart event


Input: [Event Name] dragend [Target] Source node [Bubbles?] ✓ Bubbles [Cancelable?] — [effectAllowed] Same as last event [dropEffect] Current drag operation [Default Action] Varies [dataTransfer]

Output: Empty


Input: [Expression] font name [Setting] string [Description]

Output: the name of the font


Input: [Expression] point size [Setting] short int [Description]

Output: the size of the font


Input: [Expression] weight [Setting] plain [Description]

Output: use plain face


Input: [Setting] bold [Description]

Output: use bold face


Input: [Expression] effects [Setting] underline [Description]

Output: underline the text


Input: [Expression] form [Setting] italics [Description]

Output: use the italic form


Input: [ID] 9a [Commenter] Richard Warren and Kerstin Probiesch (in questionnaire) [Location] 3.1.5 Step 1.e: Define the Techniques to be Used (Optional) [Status] Closed [Priority] High [Current Text] Entire section [Rationale] 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] 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. [Suggested Change]

Output: This section requires completely rewriting to make it clear we are talking about the evaluation techniques not the web-design techniques.

Disposition of Comments from Eval TF Review - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 30 July 2012


Input: [ID] 9b [Commenter] Richard Warren and Kerstin Probiesch (in questionnaire) [Location] 3.1.5 Step 1.e: Define the Techniques to be Used (Optional) [Status] Closed [Priority] High [Current Text] Entire section [Rationale] 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] 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. [Suggested Change]

Output: Describe the various tools and techniques that will be employed when conducting this evaluation.

Disposition of Comments from Eval TF Review - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 30 July 2012


Input: [ID] 9c [Commenter] Richard Warren and Kerstin Probiesch (in questionnaire) [Location] 3.1.5 Step 1.e: Define the Techniques to be Used (Optional) [Status] Closed [Priority] High [Current Text] Entire section [Rationale] 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] 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. [Suggested Change]

Output: This section [...] should not be optional.

Disposition of Comments from Eval TF Review - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 30 July 2012


Input: [ID] 10 [Commenter] Kathleen Wahlbin (in questionnaire) [Location] 3.1.5 Step 1.e: Define the Techniques to be Used (Optional) [Status] Closed [Priority] Medium [Rationale] 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] 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. [Suggested Change]

Output: Add information about sufficient vs advisory techniques

Disposition of Comments from Eval TF Review - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 30 July 2012


Input: [ID] 11a [Commenter] Richard Warren (in questionnaire) [Location] 3.2 Step 2: Explore the Target Website [Status] Closed [Priority] High [Rationale] 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] Resolution: Change as suggested Rationale: The paragraph makes two distinct points [Suggested Change]

Output: Separate 1st paraghraph into two

Disposition of Comments from Eval TF Review - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 30 July 2012


Input: [ID] 11b [Commenter] Richard Warren (in questionnaire) [Location] 3.2 Step 2: Explore the Target Website [Status] Closed [Priority] High [Rationale] 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] Resolution: Change as suggested Rationale: The purpose of the website should indeed be confirmed in this step [Suggested Change]

Output: Add "purpose" to the first sentence

Disposition of Comments from Eval TF Review - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 30 July 2012


Input: [ID] 11c [Commenter] Richard Warren (in questionnaire) [Location] 3.2 Step 2: Explore the Target Website [Status] Closed [Priority] High [Rationale] 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] Resolution: Change to "for more detailed evaluation later on" Rationale: Not crucial to relate this aspect to sampling Also see commment ID14 [Suggested Change]

Output: 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

Disposition of Comments from Eval TF Review - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 30 July 2012


Input: [ID] 12 [Commenter] Martijn Houtepen (in questionnaire) [Location] 3.2 Step 2: Explore the Target Website [Status] Closed [Priority] Editorial [Current Text] Carrying out initial cursory checks during this stage already helps identify web pages that are relevant for more detailed evaluation later on. [Rationale] The word 'already' seems superfluous [Resolution] Resolution: Change as suggested Rationale: The word 'already' is superfluous [Suggested Change]

Output: Carrying out initial cursory checks during this stage helps identify web pages that are relevant for more detailed evaluation later on.

Disposition of Comments from Eval TF Review - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 30 July 2012


Input: [ID] 13a [Commenter] Detlev Fisher [Location] 3.2.1 Step 2.a: Identify Key Web Pages of the Website - Requirement 2.a [Status] Closed [Priority] Medium [Current Text] Entire section, possibly also other sections such as 3.3.1 Step 3.a [Rationale] 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] 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 [Suggested Change]

Output: Remove references to "template"

Disposition of Comments from Eval TF Review - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 30 July 2012


Input: [ID] 13b [Commenter] Detlev Fisher Kathleen Wahlbin (in questionnaire) [Location] 3.2.1 Step 2.a: Identify Key Web Pages of the Website - Requirement 2.a [Status] Closed [Priority] Medium [Current Text] Entire section, possibly also other sections such as 3.3.1 Step 3.a [Rationale] I have added 'page states' as important parts of the sample [...] Page states is just as important as common webpages and templates [Resolution] 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 [Suggested Change]

Output: Add "page states"

Disposition of Comments from Eval TF Review - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 30 July 2012


Input: [ID] 14 [Commenter] Richard Warren, Kerstin Probiesch, and Kathleen Wahlbin (in questionnaire) [Location] 3.3 Step 3: Select a Representative Sample [Status] Closed [Priority] High [Rationale] 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] 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 [Suggested Change]

Output: This section should be optional and requires an introductory paragraph to explain why sampling might be required.

Disposition of Comments from Eval TF Review - WCAG-EM Editor Draft 30 July 2012