- From: cstrobbe <Christophe.Strobbe@esat.kuleuven.be>
- Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 16:53:47 +0100
- To: public-wai-ert-tsdtf@w3.org
Hi Vangelis, All, Quoting Evangelos Vlachogiannis <evlach@aegean.gr>: > Hi Christophe, all, > > I am sure there will be more ... so I think we need to go for it. > > Additionally, I am not sure if for every failure of a technique there > is > a "failure" in the techniques document (??).. Well, "failures" are failures of success criteria, not failures of techniques. You could also call them "anti-techniques" (cf "anti- patterns"). The WCAG WG didn't create techniques where those would have been just negative versions of success criteria; they needed to be more specific. Best regards, Christophe > > regards, > Vangelis > > cstrobbe wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Currently, the usage document [1] states: "Each each [sic] WCAG 2.0 > > > Test Sample must be linked to exactly one WCAG 2.0 technique or > > failure." > > However, some success criteria require a combination of techniques, > for > > example SC 2.4.2: "More than one way is available to locate content > > > within a set of Web units..." [2]. > > Should we loosen up the restriction about the number of techniques? > We > > could do that: "Each WCAG 2.0 Test Sample must be linked to exactly > one > > WCAG 2.0 technique or failure, unless a combination of techniques > is > > required to meet a success criterion." > > > > Best regards, > > > > Christophe > > > > [1] http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/tests/usingTCDL > > [2] > http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/WD-UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20-20060801/ > > Overview.html#navigation-mechanisms-mult-loc > > -- 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
Received on Monday, 30 October 2006 15:53:58 UTC