W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-comments-wcag20@w3.org > October 2008

RE: WCAG 2.0 automated verification and intended reporting layout

From: Dylan Nicholson <d.nicholson@hisoftware.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 00:27:42 -0400
To: Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>
CC: "public-comments-wcag20@w3.org" <public-comments-wcag20@w3.org>
Message-ID: <90200BC582E4FF488816D357540C1D4D0FFFB2C5E9@VMBX103.ihostexchange.net>

Automated testing tools are often used on sites upwards of a million pages.  Manual human verification of every page is hence basically impossible.  However, manual verification of, say, pages that contain "audio-only presentations" is more realistic - this assumes that there is an automated method of recording pages that use such presentations.  It would be nice if there was standard XHTML markup to identify presentations as audio-only / video-only / etc.

Is there a separate contact address for the ERT WG?
________________________________________
From: Loretta Guarino Reid [lorettaguarino@google.com]
Sent: Friday, 24 October 2008 1:08 PM
To: Dylan Nicholson
Cc: public-comments-wcag20@w3.org
Subject: Re: WCAG 2.0 automated verification and intended reporting layout

On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 8:17 PM, Dylan Nicholson
<d.nicholson@hisoftware.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Has anyone thought been given to the intended reporting layout for tools
> that automatically verify websites for WCAG 2.0 compliance?  As a developer,
> the logical "testing unit" would seem to be a "technique", while the logical
> grouping is a "success criterion".  But many techniques are shared across
> multiple criterion, so it seems that "technique" results would necessarily
> be shown more than once, e.g..:
>
> Success Criteria 1.1.1
>    H36 - passed
>    H2 - passed
>    H37 - passed
>    ...
> Success Criteria 2.4.4
>    ...
>    H2 - passed
>    ...
> Success Criteria 2.4.9
>    ...
>    H2 - passed
>
> Further, would a comprehensive report be expected to include the "G"
> techniques, which generally can't be fully automated, but could be listed as
> advice to the user as to how to check the page, potentially automatically
> filtering out which pages they are relevant to (e.g., no point showing G94
> if a page has no non-text content)?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Dylan
>
>
================================
Response from the Working Group
================================
By Success Criterion is how we grouped them in HOW TO MEET WCAG2 and
we think this is how a tool  would too.

Specific reporting formats is a differentiating feature between
evaluation tools. There are many ways to present the information to
the user, some of which are more appropriate for particular contexts
than others. It is beyond the scope of the WCAG WG to make
recommendations about this aspect of the evaluation tool's user
interface and functionality.

With regard to the General techniques (and many of the technology
specific techniques) it is true that many cannot be automatically
tested.  As a result they would need human testing.  Any tool should
both REQUIRE that the human test be conducted and PROVIDE a means to
record the result.  Further - no tool should pass a page unless the
human testing was complete.

Requirements that need human testing are just as required as those
that can be automated.  Because techniques and failures are not
normative, they should not be considered as advice but rather
requirements that must be tested for using human testers, and equal to
those requirements that can be automatically tested.

The Evaluation and Repair Tools Working Group (ERT WG) is working on a
standardized vocabulary to express test results: Evaluation and Report
Language (EARL; http://www.w3.org/TR/EARL10-Schema/). This vocabulary
can express results both from automated testing and from human
evaluation.

Loretta Guarino Reid, WCAG WG Co-Chair
Gregg Vanderheiden, WCAG WG Co-Chair
Michael Cooper, WCAG WG Staff Contact


On behalf of the WCAG Working Group
Received on Friday, 24 October 2008 04:32:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 17 July 2011 06:13:26 GMT