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 21:50:25 +0100
Message-ID: <1162241425.45466591a374b@webmail2.kuleuven.be>
To: public-wai-ert-tsdtf@w3.org

Hi Shadi,

Quoting Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>:
> Hi Christophe,
> 
> I'm sorry, I'm also a little confused. How does this relate to
> Success 
> Criteria and Location Pointers? Here is what I think you are
> proposing, 
> please confirm:
> 
> * Each "Test Sample" maps to exactly one "Success Criteria";
> * Each "Test Sample" can map to one or more "Technique" (or
> "Failure"), 
> each of which again map to the initial "Success Criteria";
> * Each "Technique" is identified within the "Location" property so
> that 
> one can locate which part of the sample has which effect.

Yes, that is correct. 
(Except that 'techniques' are not inside 'location'; I hope to have an 
updated TCDL 2.0 schema online tomorrow, including the EARL pointers.)

To refine this a bit more: my understanding is that we should map only 
to more than one technique if more than one technique is necessary to 
meet a success criterion.
And I don't think we need to map one test sample to more than one 
failure.

Best regards,

Christophe


> 
> cstrobbe wrote:
> > 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
> >>>


-- 
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 20:50:51 GMT

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