W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wai-ert-tsdtf@w3.org > October 2006

Re: Location of 'techniques' in TCDL

From: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 12:07:06 +0200
Message-ID: <4535FCCA.8000305@w3.org>
To: public-wai-ert-tsdtf@w3.org

Hi,

I agree with Daniela's point about potential ambiguity. My understanding 
is that each "run" of a test must map to exactly one technique. The 
"run" consists of the rule, the technique, and the expected outcome. 
These are one entity, and a technique is actually a (WCAG 2.0-specific) 
refinement of a rule.

My proposal would be to keep the technique element within the locations 
element but to allow no more than one instance per locations element 
(for this Task Force, a technique must be provided). Hence, each 
location within the locations element would mark exactly one instance of 
the outcome of a "run".

The way to point to multiple techniques from within one test sample 
would be to have multiple locations element per rule element. I am not 
sure if this is supported by TCDL 2.0 though. Here is an example:

<rule id="ruleID">
   <locations>
     <technique xlink:href="techniqueID">
       <!--// exactly one instance //-->
     </technique>
     <location>
       <!--// one occurence //-->
     </location>
     <location>
       <!--// another occurence //-->
     </location>
     <!--// more occurences //-->
   </locations>
   <!--// other locations //-->
</rule>

A different approach all together would be to have a new rule element 
for a new technique (= new "run"). However, I think there is a 
restriction on how the rule elements are combined in TCDL 2.0.


Regards,
   Shadi


cstrobbe wrote:
> Hi Daniela,
> 
> Quoting Daniela Ortner <Daniela.Ortner@jku.at>:
>> you wrote that with the first option ('techniques' in 'locations'
>> after
>> 'location') we would be able to describe how a location and a
>> certain
>> technique relate. The current schema would allow the following:
>>
>> <locations>
>>    <location>
>>    </location>
>>    <location>
>>    </location>
>>    ...
>>    <technique>
>>    </technique>
>>    <technique>
>>    </technique>
>>    ...
>> </locations>
>>
>> But what does that indicate? That the first <location> belongs to
>> the
>> first <technique>? 
>> I see no possibility to express relationship between a location and
>> a
>> technique from this example.
>>
>> Wouldn't it be better to construct something like:
>>
>> <locations>
>>    <location>
>>       <technique>
>>       </technique>
>>       <technique>
>>       </technique>
>>       ...
>>    </location>
>>    <location>
>>       <technique>
>>       </technique>
>>       <technique>
>>       </technique>
>>       ...
>>    </location>
>>    ...
>> </locations>
>>
>> Looking forward to read your thoughts on that...
> 
> That idea also crossed my mind, but we already have EARL pointers 
> inside location (with an <xs:all> group). If we want to go down this 
> road, it would look like this:
> 
> <locations>
>   <location>
>     <!-- EARL pointers here -->
>     <techniques>
>       <technique />
>       <technique />
>     </techniques>
>   </location>
>   <location>
>     <!-- EARL pointers here -->
>     <techniques>
>       <technique />
>       <technique />
>     </techniques>
>   </location>
> </locations>
> 
> Do people like this approach?
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Christophe
> 
>> Regards,
>> Daniela
>>
>>
>>
>>>>> cstrobbe <Christophe.Strobbe@esat.kuleuven.be> 17.10.2006
>> 18:30:03
>> Hi,
>>
>> While cleaning up the last issues in TCDL, I noticed a curious bug/
>> feature in the schema: 
>> 'techniques' can be added 
>> * either in 'locations' (after 'location', which is the first child 
>> element of 'locations'),
>> * or in 'rule', after 'locations'.
>>
>> The second option is what I originally proposed [1], but the first 
>> option would allow us to describe more accurately how a 'location'
>> and
>>
>> certain 'techniques' relate, especially if a test case uses several 
>> techniques in different locations. The latter may not be a use case
>> in
>>
>> this task force, but it would be interesting for BenToWeb or other
>> test
>>
>> suite efforts. Are there any objections to removing 'techniques' from
>>
>> 'rule' and allowing it only in 'locations'?
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Christophe
>>
>>
>> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert-tsdtf/2006Sep/
>>
>> 0019.html
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Christophe Strobbe
>> K.U.Leuven - Departement of Electrical Engineering - Research Group
>> on
>>
>> Document Architectures
>> Kasteelpark Arenberg 10 - 3001 Leuven-Heverlee - BELGIUM
>> tel: +32 16 32 85 51
>> http://www.docarch.be/ 
>>
>> Disclaimer: http://www.kuleuven.be/cwis/email_disclaimer.htm 
>>
>>
>>
> 
> 

-- 
Shadi Abou-Zahra     Web Accessibility Specialist for Europe |
Chair & Staff Contact for the Evaluation and Repair Tools WG |
World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)           http://www.w3.org/ |
Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI),   http://www.w3.org/WAI/ |
WAI-TIES Project,                http://www.w3.org/WAI/TIES/ |
Evaluation and Repair Tools WG,    http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/ |
2004, Route des Lucioles - 06560,  Sophia-Antipolis - France |
Voice: +33(0)4 92 38 50 64          Fax: +33(0)4 92 38 78 22 |
Received on Wednesday, 18 October 2006 10:07:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:18:33 GMT