W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wai-ert-tsdtf@w3.org > January 2009

RE: Test samples review status

From: Christophe Strobbe <christophe.strobbe@esat.kuleuven.be>
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 17:32:07 +0100
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20090127153149.0411e670@esat.kuleuven.be>
To: "TSDTF" <public-wai-ert-tsdtf@w3.org>

Hi Carlos, All,

Below are responses to all of the issues, based on the discussion 
during the telecon.

At 02:11 27/01/2009, Carlos Iglesias wrote:
> > >01 - There are concerns about the effectiveness of the test samples
> > >(the use of a blockquote is not obvious)
> > >02 - Concerns about quote visibility (quotes not visible in IE)
> > >03 - The related technique (F2) has been changed, but still doesn't
> > >relate to the test sample
> > >04 - Concerns about quote visibility (quotes not visible in IE)
> >
> > My understanding of the status of test samples
> > content-structure-separation-programmatic_001
> > through 004 was that I made edits, reported at
> > 
> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert-tsdtf/2008Oct/0006.html>,
> > to address earlier issues,
> > and that we later needed to check if the technique references
> > were still OK after CR publication.
> > Tim did this for these samples and also wrote that my earlier
> > edits seemed fine:
> > 
> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert-tsdtf/2008Nov/0014.html>.
>
>
>Still think that F2 is not applicable to 03 because no there is not
>change in the appearance of text that conveys meaning without using
>appropriate semantic markup (I think that in this test sample is rather
>the other way around)

What 003 wants to illustrate is the use of a Q element for something 
that is not a quote but only for the visual rendering of the Q 
element, which is not consistent across browsers.
The current test file,
<http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/tests/xhtml/testfiles/content-structure-separation-programmatic_003.html>
should display the Q element italicized.
Internet Explorer 6, Opera 9, SeaMonkey 1.1, Firefox 2.0, Firefox 1.5 
and Firefox 3.0 display the Q element as normal text (i.e. not 
italicized, bold, or in a different colour. Except for Internet 
Explorer 6, all these browsers display quote marks by default.
The addition of a style attribute to the Q element makes sure that 
all the above browsers, including IE6, change the appearance of the Q 
element. So we have a test file where CSS is used to emphasize a 
phrase visuaally without conveying that emphasis semantically, as in 
failure example 3 in
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20081211/F2>.
So why would F2 not apply to this test sample?


>Nothing to say about the rest of test samples if Tim has previously
>agreed with the changes

OK, thanks.


> > >16 - OK
> > >18 - OK
> > >19 - OK
> > >26 - There are no changes to this test sample.
> > >The issues raised in the CR are still applicable
> >
> > The metadata were modified (more precise title, description
> > and purpose), but not the sample file.
> > I assume you are proposing to change this from a pass to a
> > fail based on your argument that summary attributes on layout
> > tables are not prohibited.
> > However, there is a failure F46 (referenced by the metadata):
> > "Failure of Success Criterion
> > 1.3.1 due to using th elements, caption elements, or
> > non-empty summary attributes in layout tables"
> > <http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20081211/F46.html>
>
>Extract from F46: "Empty summary attributes are acceptable on layout
>tables, but not recommended."

Indeed, *empty* summary attributes on layout tables don't cause a failure,
but the summary attribute in 026 was never empty (I checked CVS history).
Please check the source code of
<http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/tests/xhtml/testfiles/content-structure-separation-programmatic_026.html>.
If you think that F46 still does not apply, can you please explain why.


> > >30 - Issues raised in the CR has not been addressed
> >
> > I propose the following change to address the issue:
> > - add a column for the courses for which the students have
> > enrolled (more "realistic" table),
> > - change the summary to: "This table list students with their
> > student ID and the course for which they have enrolled.
> > Students are listed alphabetically by family name."

This change was accepted in today's teleconference;
the test file has been modified accordingly.


> > >36 - One file don't follow the naming
> > >conventions (not sure what the comment about the form
> > submission means)
> >
> > We have a number of test samples with forms that may be
> > submitted but where we don't want users to land on an "Error
> > 404", so we have dummy pages where the form submission
> > "lands" and that aren't really part of the test case.
>
>Not sure if they can be considered part of the test case or not, but
>anyway think they should follow the same naming conventions

This was discussed during the telecon.
The xxx_processformdummy.html files have been renamed to conform
to the naming convention.



> > Where
> > did you find that comment?
>
>SR (Checks for test files)

The form submission issue has been fixed.
There is now a dummy submission page that conforms to the naming convention.


> >
> > >37 - OK
> > >41 - There are no changes to this test sample.
> > >The issues raised in the SR are still applicable
> >
> > See comment on 036. To conform to the naming convention, all
> > files ending on "_processformdummy.html" need to be renamed.

Done. (Cf. supra.)


Best regards,

Christophe


> >
>Regards,
>
>  CI.

-- 
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, 27 January 2009 16:32:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 January 2009 16:32:52 GMT