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

RE: EvalTF Technologies

From: Wilco Fiers <w.fiers@accessibility.nl>
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2012 14:25:10 +0100
To: Kathy Wahlbin <kathy@interactiveaccessibility.com>, 'Kiran Kaja' <kkaja@adobe.com>, "'Velleman, Eric'" <evelleman@bartimeus.nl>, "public-wai-evaltf@w3.org" <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
Message-ID: <7E0E35835EAF514AAAE44748A5EAAE2E0170DA568431@CPMBS-ZH01.kpneol.local>
Hello Kathy,

That's a good idea. Although it seems to me that if you're going to check if something has the same information, that both the things you're looking at should be in the scope. Though that may be more a semantic discussion of what it means for something to be within the scope. Since content can be considered accessible if it is provided through an accessible alternative, the Flash object in your example might as well be part of the scope.

Van: Kathy Wahlbin [kathy@interactiveaccessibility.com]
Verzonden: woensdag 4 januari 2012 13:34
Aan: 'Kiran Kaja'; 'Velleman, Eric'; public-wai-evaltf@w3.org
Onderwerp: RE: EvalTF Technologies

If there is an alternative version of the Flash that provides an equivalent
experience then I think the evaluator should be able to restrict the scope
of the review to just the alternative version.  The evaluator should look at
the Flash version and the alternative version to make sure they provide the
same content and what mechanisms are in place to make sure the two version
stay in synch.   Often that is not the case.

The same would true for the HTML and PDF content.


Phone:  978.443.0798
Cell:  978.760.0682
Fax:  978.560.1251

NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential
information. If you are not the intended recipient, please reply to the
sender indicating that fact and delete the copy you received. Thank you.

-----Original Message-----
From: Kiran Kaja [mailto:kkaja@adobe.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 5:03 AM
To: Velleman, Eric; public-wai-evaltf@w3.org
Subject: RE: EvalTF Technologies

if the aim of the evaluation is to test for compliance to WCAG2, the
evaluator definitely needs to include all technologies allowed by WCAG2 that
are present on web pages. If not, the evaluation results may be pointless in
a lot of cases.

Kiran Kaja
Accessibility Engineer
Adobe Systems Europe
+44 (0) 1628 590005 (Direct)
80005 (Internal)
+44 (0) 78330 91999 (Mobile)

-----Original Message-----
From: Velleman, Eric [mailto:evelleman@bartimeus.nl]
Sent: 03 January 2012 23:24
To: public-wai-evaltf@w3.org
Subject: EvalTF Technologies

Dear all,

Discussion item 2:

3.7 Technologies used on the webpages.
The technologies used on the website/webpage are important when determining
the scope of the evaluation. If the website has an alternative for Flash
content, does the evaluator look at both the Flash content (supposing there
are WCAG2.0 techniques for Flash) and at the alternative content?

What if the pages have both content in both pdf and html? Does the evaluator
check both? That would enlarge the scope and thereby also the sample (and
thus evaluation time).

Kindest regards,

Received on Wednesday, 4 January 2012 13:29:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:40:19 UTC