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

AW: Role of Sufficient Techniques in the methodology (was: Re: proposed definition for "website")

From: Kerstin Probiesch <k.probiesch@googlemail.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 12:43:54 +0100
To: "'Detlev Fischer'" <fischer@dias.de>, <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
Message-ID: <4f33b16c.107f0e0a.0db0.2889@mx.google.com>
Hi Detlev, all

"Note that all techniques are informative."
(http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-TECHS/intro.html). Informative: "for information
purposes and not required for conformance Note: Content required for
conformance is referred to as "normative.""
(http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-WCAG20-20081211/#informativedef)

When using techniques as checkpoints - and this is what it will lastly mean
- techniques will loose their meaning and their character as optional. They
would change their meaning and character from optional to quasi-normative.

If then every testing organization or evaluator could decide upon suitable
(whatever this means) subsets and upon redundant or not redundant we won't
come out with a harmonized methodology and the methodology wouldn't be
standardized also.

--Kerstin





> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Detlev Fischer [mailto:fischer@dias.de]
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 9. Februar 2012 11:32
> An: public-wai-evaltf@w3.org
> Betreff: Role of Sufficient Techniques in the methodology (was: Re:
> proposed definition for "website")
> 
> hi Kerstin, hi List,
> 
> I think it is important to clarify the role of the Sufficient
> Techniques
> in the Evaluation Methodology. Kerstin, you have pointed out a
> statement
> in the techniques document that says:
> 
>    "Test procedures are provided in techniques to help verify that
>    the technique has been properly implemented."
>    (...)
>    "In particular, test procedures for individual techniques should
>    not be taken as test procedures for the WCAG 2.0 success criteria
>    overall."
> 
>  From this, you conclude that the Methodology should not refer to
> techniques at all. I think you may be misinterpreting the quoted
> statement. It does not warn against the use of techiques; it merely
> emphasises that any "fail" result when testing a particular technique
> does not show that the corresponding Success Criterion has not been
> met,
> because another Technique might have done the job.
> 
> The whole point of the "Sufficient Techniques" in WCAG ist to collect
> well-known ways of meeting Success Criteria and also offering tests
> that
> prove that the technique has been used correctly. The Quickref shows
> (sets of) Sufficient Techniques that can be used to meet SC. If the
> test
> of a Sufficient Technique (or all tests within the set of related
> techniques that together constitute one option for meeting the SC)
> returns a "pass", then the Success Criterion has been met.
> 
> Therefore, the Sufficient Techniques are a useful component for
> conducting the Evaluation, and this should be stated in Part 5.3 of the
> Methodology. While we will not deal with every SC on a detail level, I
> think it it is fair to state on a general level that the test procedure
> should check whether the "Sufficient Techniques"-options laid out in
> the
> Quickref ("How to meet WCAG 2.0") have been used to meet the SC under
> test.
> 
> Having said that, Section 5.3 should also state that if none of the
> documented Sufficient Techniques has been used, the SC might still have
> been met by an as yet undocumented technique. If they *are*
> successfully
> used, however, the SC is met.
> 
> What I am yet not sure about is whether section 5.3 should also include
> the application of the documented Failures related to a SC, or whether
> these are always the inverse of documented Sufficient Techniques. While
> many will be redundant, some may not be.
> 
> Regards,
> Detlev
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Am 08.02.2012 22:27, schrieb Michael S Elledge:
> > Hi everyone--
> >
> > I don't think this is a problem so long as conformance is defined as
> > meeting the full set of success factors, excepting those that are not
> > applicable to the page (such as blinking content).
> >
> > It will always be up to the evaluator to decide which techniques to
> use
> > to evaluate compliance with success factors, won't it?
> >
> > Mike
> >
> > On 2/8/2012 3:07 PM, Kerstin Probiesch wrote:
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> this would mean: testing techniques and not SCs.
> >>
> >> Another problem is suitable" especially when - like proposed here -
> >> the testing organization defines the techniques (subset). This will
> >> lead to different subsets (techniques) and to different results
> >> depending on what different testing organizations or testers define
> as
> >> "suitable".
> >>
> >> -- Kerstin
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 2012/2/8 Detlev Fischer<fischer@dias.de>:
> >>> I think any full evaluation would have to include the full set of
> SC
> >>> for a
> >>> conformance claim, but it is still useful to be able to deploy a
> >>> suitable
> >>> subset, for example, to evaluate the output of a particular
> portlet. The
> >>> definition of the subset would be down to the organization doing
> the
> >>> testing. Such a portlet test would be no more than a building block
> >>> towards
> >>> a final full evaluation (or may serve its purpose outside the
> context
> >>> of a
> >>> full WCAG conformance claim). At least that's the way I see it...
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>> Detlev
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> to Quoting Elle<nethermind@gmail.com>:
> >>>
> >>>> Detlev:
> >>>>
> >>>> Does this mean we would theoretically have a full set and a sub
> set for
> >>>> the
> >>>> methodology?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>> Elle
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 12:15 PM, Detlev Fischer<fischer@dias.de>
> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Hi Don, hi list,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I agree that the evaluation of portlets is an important use case.
> It
> >>>>> raises the issue to what extent the methodology would support an
> >>>>> evaluation
> >>>>> based on a subset of WCAG success criteria.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Just to be clear: I think a proper conformance statement can only
> >>>>> be made
> >>>>> on the level of the full web page. The testing of a number of
> success
> >>>>> criteria depends not only on the assessment of the full page (as
> >>>>> for most
> >>>>> SC within principle 2: Operable), but beyond that, on the page
> >>>>> *context*,
> >>>>> as in 2.4.5 Multiple Ways, 3.2.3 Consistent Navigation, and 3.2.4
> >>>>> Consistent Identification. And some success criteria (or subsets
> >>>>> thereof,
> >>>>> such as 1.3.1: headings) may or may not apply on the level of
> >>>>> portlet-generated code fragment, depending on the approach. For
> >>>>> example,
> >>>>> in
> >>>>> an HTML 5 context, the headings hierarchy may be generated from
> the
> >>>>> nesting
> >>>>> of fragments so having all portals use h1 might be fine.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Having said that, it is clearly useful to be able to evaluate
> >>>>> portlets or
> >>>>> other code framents (whatever way they are generated) with an
> >>>>> applicable
> >>>>> subset of WCAG Success Criteria. This would give organizations a
> >>>>> means to
> >>>>> measure the degree of conformance on a unit level long before a
> final
> >>>>> conformance claim or test. The full conformance statement would
> >>>>> then only
> >>>>> be made on the level of the portal page.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> How much of the methodology is actually useful for a selective
> >>>>> evaluation
> >>>>> based on a subset of WCAG success criteria needs to be carefully
> >>>>> looked
> >>>>> at.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Regards,
> >>>>> Detlev
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> e.g. Quoting Shadi Abou-Zahra<shadi@w3.org>:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hi Don,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I would say that this depends on what the scope of the
> evaluation is,
> >>>>>> which needs to be clearly stated in the conformance
> statement/report.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It could make sense to have each portlet evaluated separately,
> though
> >>>>>> this would not include the main portal entry page and similarly
> pages
> >>>>>> that
> >>>>>> belong to the portal but are not specific to individual portals.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Actually, I think this is an important use-case for us to
> consider.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Best,
> >>>>>> Shadi
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 3.2.2012 17:40, Don Raikes wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Hi everyone,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Maybe I have missed a discussion of this topic since I just
> >>>>>>> joined the
> >>>>>>> group, but what about a portal-style site?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> What if one or more portlets on the site are accessible, but
> the
> >>>>>>> container portal page has some accessibility issues how do we
> handle
> >>>>>>> this?
> >>>>>>> Also what about the fact that some portlets are accessible and
> >>>>>>> others
> >>>>>>> are
> >>>>>>> not? Do we consider each portlet a website since it is a
> >>>>>>> self-contained
> >>>>>>> web
> >>>>>>> application?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>>>> From: Shadi Abou-Zahra [mailto:shadi@w3.org]
> >>>>>>> Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 4:38 AM
> >>>>>>> To: Eval TF
> >>>>>>> Subject: proposed definition for "website"
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Dear Eval TF,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Yesterday I took an action to propose a new definition for
> "website"
> >>>>>>> *in
> >>>>>>> the context of this document*. Currently the document says:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> [[
> >>>>>>>
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/**methodology/#website<http://www.w3.org/WAI/E
> R/methodology/#website>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Website - A coherent collection of one or more related web
> pages
> >>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>> together provide common use or functionality. It includes
> static web
> >>>>>>> pages,
> >>>>>>> dynamically generated web pages, and web applications.
> >>>>>>> ]]
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I propose we add the following text to this definition:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> [[
> >>>>>>> Websites are generally self-enclosed entities with key
> resources
> >>>>>>> such
> >>>>>>> as
> >>>>>>> a homepage, login page, or other entry pages; help pages;
> >>>>>>> sitemap; and
> >>>>>>> contact information. Web pages within a website typically have
> a
> >>>>>>> common
> >>>>>>> design ("look and feel") and navigational structures. Examples
> of
> >>>>>>> websites
> >>>>>>> in the context of this document include:
> >>>>>>> - Self-enclosed web appearances owned or provided by
> organizations;
> >>>>>>> - Self-enclosed sections of websites (sometimes referred to as
> >>>>>>> "sub-sites"), such as these of departments within
> organizations;
> >>>>>>> - Self-enclosed web applications and other web-based products.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Arbitrary selections of individual web pages, especially those
> >>>>>>> that do
> >>>>>>> not include complete processes, are not regarded as websites.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Note: Selections of individual web pages that are not regarded
> as
> >>>>>>> websites may claim conformance to WCAG, but the evaluation of
> such
> >>>>>>> collections is outside the scope of this methodology.
> >>>>>>> ]]
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Looking forward to your reactions!
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Best,
> >>>>>>> Shadi
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>> Shadi Abou-Zahra -
> >>>>>>>
> http://www.w3.org/People/**shadi/<http://www.w3.org/People/shadi/>Activ
> ity
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Lead, W3C/WAI International Program Office Evaluation and
> Repair
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Tools Working Group (ERT WG) Research and Development Working
> Group
> >>>>>>> (RDWG)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Shadi Abou-Zahra -
> >>>>>>
> http://www.w3.org/People/**shadi/<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)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> ------------------------------**------------------------------**-
> --
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Detlev Fischer PhD
> >>>>> DIAS GmbH - Daten, Informationssysteme und Analysen im Sozialen
> >>>>> Geschäftsführung: Thomas Lilienthal, Michael Zapp
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Telefon: +49-40-43 18 75-25
> >>>>> Mobile: +49-157 7-170 73 84
> >>>>> Fax: +49-40-43 18 75-19
> >>>>> E-Mail: fischer@dias.de
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Anschrift: Schulterblatt 36, D-20357 Hamburg
> >>>>> Amtsgericht Hamburg HRB 58 167
> >>>>> Geschäftsführer: Thomas Lilienthal, Michael Zapp
> >>>>> ------------------------------**------------------------------**-
> --
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> If you want to build a ship, don't drum up the people to gather
> wood,
> >>>> divide the work, and give orders. Instead, teach them to yearn for
> the
> >>>> vast
> >>>> and endless sea.
> >>>> - Antoine De Saint-Exupéry, The Little Prince
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> Detlev Fischer PhD
> >>> DIAS GmbH - Daten, Informationssysteme und Analysen im Sozialen
> >>> Geschäftsführung: Thomas Lilienthal, Michael Zapp
> >>>
> >>> Telefon: +49-40-43 18 75-25
> >>> Mobile: +49-157 7-170 73 84
> >>> Fax: +49-40-43 18 75-19
> >>> E-Mail: fischer@dias.de
> >>>
> >>> Anschrift: Schulterblatt 36, D-20357 Hamburg
> >>> Amtsgericht Hamburg HRB 58 167
> >>> Geschäftsführer: Thomas Lilienthal, Michael Zapp
> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
Received on Thursday, 9 February 2012 11:44:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:52:13 GMT