W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wai-ert-tsdtf@w3.org > September 2008

Re: updated test sample review information - fyi

From: Christophe Strobbe <christophe.strobbe@esat.kuleuven.be>
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 19:58:50 +0200
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20080916152622.03105e20@esat.kuleuven.be>
To: public-wai-ert-tsdtf@w3.org

Hi Tim, All,

At 15:24 4/08/2008, Tim Boland wrote:
>Per comments from SAZ and CS, I revised my reviews for test samples 
>001 and 002, and added reviews for test samples 003 and 004.  I 
>tried to be more explicit in my comments, to separate content review 
>from structure review, and to separate out issues with the test 
>samples from issues with the techniques/WCAG.  I also tried to make 
>specific suggestions to improve test samples where appropriate..
>
>For 001, I think it's better but test sample could still be 
>improved.  Made some suggestions..

<quote>
actual purpose of test case is still confusing, title/purpose tags 
still misleading, still not obvious that indentation is what's 
intended by using blockquote (testing of intent?)"
</quote>

I have tested this in several browsers (SeaMonkey 1.1, Internet 
Explorer 6, Opera 9.02, Firefox 1.5, Firefox 2.0 and Firefox 3.0, all 
on Windows XP) and they all display the blockquote as indented text. 
This makes it hard for me to understand why the purpose ("The test 
case is intended to fail because the blockquote element is used for 
indentation instead of a quotation.") is said to test the intent (as 
opposed to default visual rendering in major browsers).

However, if nobody has objections, I will change the test sample in 
the way suggested in the review:
<quote>
do something like "p" Chapter 1 "/p", "blockquote" Section 1.1 
"/blockquote", "blockquote" Section 1.2 "/blockquote", etc. to make 
it more obvious that blockquote is being used for sections within a chapter
</quote>

The note to WCAG needs to be moved to a separate page; a link to that 
page can then be added in the "Issues" column in the TastSampleStatusList.


>For 002, TF needs to discuss which technique (G115?) to reference in 
>the test sample?

You're right, the reference should be to G115 (Using semantic 
elements to mark up structure) instead of F43.
I have fixed this.

With regard to length of quotes: when I writing papers at university, 
I was told to indent any quotes that are three lines or longer, and 
to embed any shorter quotes into the text. That is also the rule I 
used in the test sample.
Any suggestions for improvement?
(See test file at 
<http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/tests/xhtml/testfiles/content-structure-separation-programmatic_002.html>.)



>For 003, referenced technique number doesn't exist according to my 
>investigation?   Made suggestions..

You're right.
This test sample was created when failure F64 (Failure of SC 1.3.1 
due to using changes in text presentation to convey information 
without using the appropriate markup or text) still existed.
The last version of WCAG that contained this failure was the May 2007 draft
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-WCAG20-TECHS-20070517/#F64>; the 
failure has been removed since then.
As far as I can see, F64 was folded into F2 (Failure of Success 
Criterion 1.3.1 due to using changes in text presentation to convey 
information without using the appropriate markup or text):
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-WCAG20-TECHS-20080430/F2.html>.
So I propose that we change the technique reference to F2.


>004 looks good to me (just a few minor comnents).

Opera 9.02,Firefox 3 and SeaMonkey 1.1 show quote marks, while 
Internet Explorer does not. In Internet Explorer, there is no 
information, structure or relationship conveyed through presentation, 
hence the does test sample does not fail in that browser. The other 
browsers show quote marks *because* of the <q> element, so any 
variation in the rendering of the quote in these browsers pass SC 
1.3.1 because of the <q> element.
SC 1.3.1 does not require that semantic markup such as <q> is 
rendered differently from surrounding normal text, so the test file 
is also OK from that perspective.

Should we add something to expertGuidance (i.e. some browsers display 
quote marks; different rendering of <q> is not required)?

Best regards,

Christophe



>Best, Tim
>
>PS - I will be on vacation next two weeks, so send regrets..
>

-- 
Christophe Strobbe
K.U.Leuven - Dept. of Electrical Engineering - SCD
Research Group on Document Architectures
Kasteelpark Arenberg 10 bus 2442
B-3001 Leuven-Heverlee
BELGIUM
tel: +32 16 32 85 51
http://www.docarch.be/
---
Please don't invite me to LinkedIn, Facebook, Quechup or other 
"social networks". You may have agreed to their "privacy policy", but 
I haven't.


Disclaimer: http://www.kuleuven.be/cwis/email_disclaimer.htm
Received on Tuesday, 16 September 2008 17:59:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 16 September 2008 17:59:33 GMT