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

AW: An Evaluation Question for all you experts

From: Kerstin Probiesch <k.probiesch@googlemail.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 12:57:14 +0100
To: "'Michael S Elledge'" <elledge@msu.edu>, <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>, <v.conway@ecu.edu.au>
Message-ID: <4eba6a86.83940e0a.4aa5.ffff94f1@mx.google.com>
Hi Vivienne, Mike, all,

probably I don't get the problem. The new window can be closed with Alt-F4,
which is a very common method. A keyboard user might also decide before
closing it changing with Alt+Tab to other window which is also very common
and close both or one of them later with Alt+F4. JAWS says: new window. Was
it the wrong one I've tested?

Best

Kerstin


> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Michael S Elledge [mailto:elledge@msu.edu]
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 8. November 2011 21:11
> An: public-wai-evaltf@w3.org; v.conway@ecu.edu.au
> Betreff: Re: An Evaluation Question for all you experts
> 
> 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 Wednesday, 9 November 2011 11:57:27 GMT

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