W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wai-evaltf@w3.org > August 2012

Comments #29 and #30 - editorial improvements to 3.1.5 Step 1.e and 3.4.2 Step 4.b

From: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 01:24:19 +0200
Message-ID: <50356A23.6030905@w3.org>
To: Eval TF <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
CC: Eric Velleman <E.Velleman@bartimeus.nl>, Detlev Fischer <fischer@dias.de>
[apologies - long message in response to several related comments]

Dear Group,

This is primarily in response to two of Detlev's comments, #29 and #30:
  - <http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730#c29>
  - <http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730#c30>

The full log of Detlev's comments is recorded here:
  - <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-evaltf/2012Aug/0006>

See also the related comments #9a-#9c, #10, #25-#28:
  - <http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730#c9a>
  - <http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730#c9b>
  - <http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730#c9c>
  - <http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730#c10>
  - <http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730#c25>
  - <http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730#c26>
  - <http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730#c27>
  - <http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments-20120730#c28>

The current wording of the relevant sections are here:
  - <http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20120730#step1e>
  - <http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/ED-methodology-20120730#step4b>

In response to these comments, here are suggested rewrites to sections 
3.1.5 Step 1.e and 3.4.2 Step 4.b for your review and discussion:

# Rewrite for section 3.1.5 Step 1.e [[
/Techniques/ in the context of WCAG 2.0 are informative and not required 
for satisfying the _WCAG 2.0 conformance requirements_; WCAG 2.0 Success 
Criteria are written as testable statements. However, techniques provide 
documented ways of meeting WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria and documented 
failures to meet them. More information on techniques is provided in 
_introduction to techniques_.

W3C/WAI provides a set of publicly documented _Techniques for WCAG 2.0_. 
However, it is not necessary to use these particular techniques. In 
fact, in some specific situations, such as in a closed network, it may 
be necessary to use techniques that are specifically developed for such 
situations. Individuals and organizations developing techniques must 
employ methods for establishing the technique's ability to meet the WCAG 
2.0 Success Criteria.

It is good practice to specify the sets or sources of techniques that 
are intended to be used during the evaluation at this stage already to 
ensure consistent expectation between the _evaluator_ and the 
_evaluation commissioner_. However, this definition is typically refined 
in later stages of the evaluation process, for example during the 
_website_ exploration and evaluation stages.
]]


# Rewrite for section 3.4.2 Step 4.b [[
*Reminder:* _WCAG 2.0 techniques_ are not required for satisfying the 
_WCAG 2.0 conformance requirements_; WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria are 
written as testable statements.

The initial sets or sources of techniques to be used during evaluation 
may be defined in section _3.1.5 Step 1.e: Define the Techniques to be 
Used (Optional)_. However, during evaluation such an initial set may 
need to be refined according to the particular situation, such as for 
evaluating particular web technologies and accessibility features.

WCAG 2.0 defines three types of techniques:
  - *Sufficient Techniques:* Are ways for meeting what is required by 
individual WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria in particular situations;
  - *Advisory Techniques:* Go beyond what is required by individual WCAG 
2.0 Success Criteria to better address the WCAG 2.0 Guidelines;
  - *Common Failures:* Documented types of failures in meeting 
individual WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria in particular situations;

For each _web page_ a WCAG 2.0 Success Criterion is:
  - Met when for each applicable instance of the WCAG 2.0 Success 
Criterion on the _web page_ at least one /Sufficient Technique/ is 
identified to be applicable, *and* no /Common Failure/ is identified to 
be applicable;
  - Not met when for any applicable instance of the WCAG 2.0 Success 
Criterion on the _web page_ at least one /Common Failure/ is identified 
to be applicable;

Techniques are not exhaustive as they cannot cover every possible 
situation. Also, the techniques used to meet WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria 
during the development may not be known to the evaluator. Particularly 
for newly released web technologies or when these web technologies are 
used in particular contexts there may be no publicly or proprietary 
documented techniques available to the evaluator. Evaluators must be 
considerate of these limitation when they are using techniques to assess 
conformance with WCAG 2.0.

Note: Advisory techniques may not be fully supported by assistive 
technology. If they are used, make sure that these work with the web 
browsers and assistive technology defined in _3.1.4 Step 1.d: Define the 
Context of Website Use_.
]]


# Notes for background:
  - "'it can be assumed' introduces vagueness" -- comment accepted;
  - "'Satisfy' a SC" -- WCAG 2.0 uses "meet" in the context of SCs;
  - "must be true for *all* instances" -- comment accepted;
  - "no reason to qualify Failures as 'Common'" -- WCAG 2.0 wording;
  - "'Not met where common failures are applicable' seems a slightly 
fuzzy wording" -- comment accepted;
  - "only where content under test *fails to conform*" -- comment accepted;
  - Rewording suggested in comment #29 -- conceptually accepted but 
implemented differently (e.g. avoided use of the term "evidence" and 
addressed the "mapping" aspect in step 1.e rather than here);


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)
Received on Wednesday, 22 August 2012 23:24:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:52:14 GMT