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

Re: Minimum number of techniques in metadata

From: cstrobbe <Christophe.Strobbe@esat.kuleuven.be>
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 17:37:38 +0100
Message-ID: <1162226258.45462a528e980@webmail2.kuleuven.be>
To: public-wai-ert-tsdtf@w3.org

Hi Vangelis, All,

Quoting Evangelos Vlachogiannis <evlach@aegean.gr>:
> 
> So does this "Each WCAG 2.0 Test Sample must be linked to
>  exactly one WCAG 2.0 technique or failure, .. " applies?
> 
> If we mean that an "anti-technique" test sample needs to link 
> to the technique (the way I have developed the committed tests)
> I think we need to clarify this in document. 
> (Otherwise make techniques optional?? - dont think..)

I think we're getting confused here. (Maybe because I called failures 
"anti-techniques"?)
What I meant is:
Each test sample links to
- exactly one WCAG 2.0 failure 
  [= test sample demonstrates failure],
- exactly one WCAG 2.0 technique
  [= test sample demonstrates technique],
- more than one WCAG 2.0 technique if more than one 
  technique is required to meet a success criterion
  [= test sample demonstrates combination of techniques
  that are need to meet a success criterion].

Of course, none of this is meant to imply that certain techniques are 
"normative" or "required" for conformance (see Tim's mail). Maybe we 
can add a note about this at "techniques".

Best regards,

Christophe

> 
> regards,
> Vangelis
> 
> cstrobbe wrote:
> > 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
> >>
> > 
> > 
> 
> -- 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> Evangelos Vlachogiannis
> Researcher - PhD. Candidate
> Contact: http://www.syros.aegean.gr/users/evlach/contactme.php
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> 


-- 
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 16:37:59 GMT

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