W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wai-evaltf@w3.org > November 2011

Re: An Evaluation Question for all you experts

From: Michael S Elledge <elledge@msu.edu>
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2011 15:11:28 -0500
Message-ID: <4EB98CF0.2030706@msu.edu>
To: public-wai-evaltf@w3.org, v.conway@ecu.edu.au
Hi Vivienne--

I believe something is not a keyboard trap if it can be exited using 
common methods (tab, arrows), or, if an uncommon method is used such as 
alt-f, an explanation of how to exit is provided (per Detlev's comment).

Mike

On 11/8/2011 4:28 AM, Vivienne CONWAY wrote:
> Hi Shadi
>
> You raise some really interesting points in your email.  I agree that when a particular item violates numerous WCAG 2 points, it does seem to create a problem when working on a numerical scoring system.  That issue may then seem to have a greater significance because of the number of violation points it incurs.  One of these type of issues is labels.  There are areas of 1.3.1., 2.4.6, and 4.1.2. that all relate to labels and whether or not they are programatically determinable.  In theory, a missing label could incur a point for each of these items.
>
> In my opinion, this is something the TF can address in our document - how you determine which SC, Failures etc. apply to an item.  I've come across some situations where people say it can only be scored in 1 section, however I'd disagree with this.
>
> One of my main questions is 'when is a keyboard trap really a keyboard trap'.  Theoretically, if you can get out of it by any manner, using the keyboard only, then it is not a trap.  However if you're using a screen-reader, it is not always or immediately obvious that you're, in a new window or trapped some other way.  Therefore, you don't always know to press Alt+F to exit the window and return to the original window, you don't always know that the back button is broken or not etc.  So, for the person using the screen-reader, it is a keyboard trap, even though there was a way out if only they knew what was happening.  Does that make sense?
>
> I'll go and look at the other links you've provided.  This is an on-going discussion I've been having with other accessibility evaluators and which I hope will one day be decided.  Because of the research I'm doing, I must have a numerical scoring system so that I can compare websites.  I know that it is not ideal, either a website passes or it doesn't.  However, I am comparing websites over a period of time to track their improvement and to compare the groups e.g. government, non-government etc.
>
> Thanks for everyone's advice.
>
>
> Regards
>
> Vivienne L. Conway, B.IT(Hons)
> PhD Candidate&  Sessional Lecturer, Edith Cowan University, Perth, W.A.
> Director, Web Key IT Pty Ltd.
> v.conway@ecu.edu.au
> v.conway@webkeyit.com
> Mob: 0415 383 673
>
> This email is confidential and intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify me immediately by return email or telephone and destroy the original message.
> ________________________________________
> From: Shadi Abou-Zahra [shadi@w3.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, 8 November 2011 6:00 PM
> To: Vivienne CONWAY
> Cc: Eval TF
> Subject: Re: An Evaluation Question for all you experts
>
> Hi Vivienne,
>
> I have not actually looked at the website but from your description it
> sounds to me that other Success Criteria than SC 2.1.2 may be relevant:
>    - SC 1.1.1 for the text alternatives on the buttons
>    - SC 2.4.4 and SC 2.4.9 for the link text (purpose)
>    - SC 3.2.2 for changing the context without warning
>
> A discussion of this is probably better on the WAI Interest Group (IG)
> mailing list, which I hope everyone in this list is tracking too:
>    -<http://www.w3.org/WAI/IG/>
>
> Having said that, I guess some key take aways for this group include:
>    - evaluators need better guidance on the Techniques level
>    - one issue often maps to more than one Success Criterion
>
> We need to be aware of that, in particular the second point which will
> impact how we aggregate issues and score the websites. Is it a bigger
> issue because it maps to more than one criterion and thus probably
> impacts more people, or is that an artifact of how WCAG is structured?
>
> Some of this may be partially answered through the RDWG Symposium:
>    -<http://www.w3.org/WAI/RD/2011/metrics/>
>
> The first point may indicate that a "How to Evaluate WCAG 2.0" rather
> than "How to Meet WCAG 2.0" quick reference guide is needed:
>    -<http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/quickref/>
>
> We will need a lot more discussion about how this guide is to look like
> but it is one of the planned activities:
>    -<http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/2011/eval/#supporting>
>
> Are there other particular issues that you wanted to raise?
>
> Sidenote: this seems related to a previous thread from Detlev Fischer:
>    -<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-evaltf/2011Sep/0101>
>
> Best,
>     Shadi
>
>
> On 8.11.2011 03:54, Vivienne CONWAY wrote:
>> Hi all
>>
>> I have been having an interesting discussion with a fellow evaluator on what consitutes a failure of 2.1.2. (Keyboard Trap). http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/keyboard-operation-trapping.html#keybrd-interfacedef
>>
>> If you have time, please have a look at the following website:
>> http://jobsearch.gov.au/default.aspx
>>
>> If you navigate via the keyboard to the large box on the right hand side with the eight numbers (which have such lovely link names as 1-link, 2-link), you will see that you can click on the box and it takes you - with no warning, - to a new window.  The person using a screen reader would not know they have entered a new window unless they hear and notice the new URL, but that's not what I'm wondering about.  The only way I can see to get out is to exit the window via the Alt-F, exit option to close the window, at which time you go back to the starting point.  My question is, does this constitute a keyboard trap?  For example, the user doesn't know they are in a new window, so would not know to exit in the above way.
>>
>> This is a typical question someone evaluating a website would come across, so I thought you might find it useful to discuss it and give me your learned opinions.
>>
>> Happy analyzing
>>
>> Vivienne
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Vivienne L. Conway, B.IT(Hons)
>> PhD Candidate&   Sessional Lecturer, Edith Cowan University, Perth, W.A.
>> Director, Web Key IT Pty Ltd.
>> v.conway@ecu.edu.au
>> v.conway@webkeyit.com
>> Mob: 0415 383 673
>>
>> This email is confidential and intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify me immediately by return email or telephone and destroy the original message.
>> ________________________________________
>> From: Shadi Abou-Zahra [shadi@w3.org]
>> Sent: Friday, 4 November 2011 4:27 AM
>> To: Eval TF
>> Subject: Minutes for Teleconference on 3 November 2011
>>
>> Eval TF,
>>
>> Please find the minutes for the teleconference on 3 November 2011:
>>     -<http://www.w3.org/2011/11/03-eval-minutes.html>
>>
>> Next meeting: Thursday 10 November 2011
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>      Shadi
>>
>> --
>> Shadi Abou-Zahra - http://www.w3.org/People/shadi/
>> Activity Lead, W3C/WAI International Program Office
>> Evaluation and Repair Tools Working Group (ERT WG)
>> Research and Development Working Group (RDWG)
>>
>> This e-mail is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient you must not disclose or use the information contained within. If you have received it in error please return it to the sender via reply e-mail and delete any record of it from your system. The information contained within is not the opinion of Edith Cowan University in general and the University accepts no liability for the accuracy of the information provided.
>>
>> CRICOS IPC 00279B
>>
> --
> Shadi Abou-Zahra - http://www.w3.org/People/shadi/
> Activity Lead, W3C/WAI International Program Office
> Evaluation and Repair Tools Working Group (ERT WG)
> Research and Development Working Group (RDWG)
>
> This e-mail is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient you must not disclose or use the information contained within. If you have received it in error please return it to the sender via reply e-mail and delete any record of it from your system. The information contained within is not the opinion of Edith Cowan University in general and the University accepts no liability for the accuracy of the information provided.
>
> CRICOS IPC 00279B
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 8 November 2011 20:11:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:52:12 GMT