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

RE: Proposal for next Questionnaire (was: Re: A question about Step 4.b: Use WCAG 2.0 Techniques Where Possible)

From: Velleman, Eric <evelleman@bartimeus.nl>
Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2012 21:42:46 +0000
To: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>, "detlev.fischer@testkreis.de"<detlev.fischer@testkreis.de>
CC: "public-wai-evaltf@w3.org" <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
Message-ID: <3D063CE533923349B1B52F26312B0A4684275C@s107ma.bart.local>
Hi Detlev,

Thanks for the points. They will be in the next questionnaire as we agreed during the last telco. Hope to have that ready by friday. I am now working on a new version of the Editor draft and looking at the last comments we have to cover. 

Kindest regards,


Van: Shadi Abou-Zahra [shadi@w3.org]
Verzonden: donderdag 28 juni 2012 8:42
Aan: detlev.fischer@testkreis.de
CC: public-wai-evaltf@w3.org
Onderwerp: Re: Proposal for next Questionnaire (was: Re: A question about Step  4.b: Use WCAG 2.0 Techniques Where Possible)

Hi Detlev,

These points capture the main premise we agreed on, that WCAG-EM will
not reinterpret WCAG 2.0, but rather explain its applicability in the
context of post-development conformance evaluation of websites. Still,
some of the formulation seems overly restrictive to me. Some comments
inline for further discussion:

On 27.6.2012 14:00, detlev.fischer@testkreis.de wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> Shadi's reply to my question regarding Step 4.b: "Use WCAG 2.0 Techniques Where Possible" suggests that the point I raised is beyond the scope of WCAG-EM. The lack of further answers indicates that this might be consensus in our group.
> To clarify and clearly delimit this scope of WCAG-EM, I suggest the three statements below that might be used in at the beginning of Step 4: "Audit the Selected Sample". (I also thought whether they might fit into step Step 1.e: "Define the Techniques to be Used (Optional)" but the aim of this section is different.
> Eric,  maybe we can put these statements (as they are, or in modified form) in the next questionnaire to see if this is ideed consensus?
> "(1) WCAG-EM provides no details regarding the application of Sufficient Techniques in conformance evaluation beyond the enumeration of options in the WCAG Quickref. Any Sufficient Technique (and any technique that is demonstrably sufficient for the relevant context of use) may be used in whatever combination as long as all page content satisfies the respective Success Criterion."

"no details" seems overly strong. We may agree to provide some guidance
on how to apply and use Techniques (including Sufficient Techniques),
though we did not agree to enumerate individual Techniques and how they
need to be combined to meet individual Success Criteria.

> "(2) WCAG-EM provides no guidance beyond what is stated in the normative section of WCAG 2.0 as to whether web content satisfies of fails a particular Success Criterion. While the Sufficient Techniques are informative only, their examples and test procedures should be used as guidance and referenced when rating web content."

Also "no guidance" seems overly strong. I'm also not sure why we want to
restrict ourselves to "the normative section of WCAG 2.0" when the
supporting documents provide so much valuable guidance for evaluators.

> "(3) Success Criteria may be met either by WCAG's documented Sufficient Techniques or by any author-provided technique that demonstrably satisfies the Success Criterion AND has sufficient accessibility support for the users of the site or application under test."

This is an interpretation of the WCAG 2.0 conformance requirements ;)

> I hope that these statements encapsulate the status quo. If they do not, I would be glad if you could suggest modifications.
> Just to be clear, I can live with this position. In my view, it just moves many of the issues critical for a valid a11y assessment outside the scope of WCAG-EM. However, this may be better then engaging in protracted (potentially endless) arguments about the details of evaluation (should some content be allowed to pass or should it fail).

Basically this is the main premise and I apologize if it was not made
sufficiently clear for you. When "some content should be allowed to pass
or fail" should be better addressed by WCAG 2.0 itself.

As said in a previous posting [1], I encourage people in this group to
send feedback to the WCAG Working Group when they encounter issues in
WCAG 2.0 or when clarifications are needed. Improving WCAG 2.0 helps
many different contexts, not only WCAG-EM.

[1] <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-evaltf/2012Jun/0112>


> Best, Detlev
> --
> Detlev Fischer
> testkreis c/o feld.wald.wiese
> Borselstraße 3-7 (im Hof), 22765 Hamburg
> Mobil +49 (0)1577 170 73 84
> Tel +49 (0)40 439 10 68-3
> Fax +49 (0)40 439 10 68-5
> http://www.testkreis.de
> Beratung, Tests und Schulungen für barrierefreie Websites
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: shadi@w3.org
> To: detlev.fischer@testkreis.de
> Date: 26.06.2012 11:29:44
> Subject: Re: A question about Step 4.b: Use WCAG 2.0 Techniques Where Possible
>> Hi Detlev,
>> To your question:
>>> Should WCAG-EM explicitly address this issue? If so, how?
>> No, I don't think WCAG-EM should address this explicitly as these are
>> interpretations of the Success Criteria.
>> Having said that, I encourage people to send feedback to WCAG Working
>> Group so that issues can be identified and fixed (likely through the
>> Techniques or Understanding documents).
>> Maybe in the phase where we test our methodology in practice we could
>> also collect these observations and send as a collective feedback from
>> Eval TF to the WCAG WG.
>> Best,
>>    Shadi
>> On 26.6.2012 09:35, Detlev Fischer wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>> I'd like to hear your views regarding a particular problem when using
>>> Sufficient Techniques to check whether a page conforms.
>>> I take it that generally, the procedure might look like this:
>>> 1. Check if one of the numbered Sufficient Techniques (or options
>>> grouping techniques) has been used successfully
>>> 2. Check whether another (yet undocumented) Technique has been used AND
>>> can be deemed sufficient / AT-supported
>>> 3. Check if one of the Failures documented for that SC applies
>>> As we work through a page, there will often be situations where
>>> particular instances of content use one technique and other instances
>>> use a different technique. This is quite acceptable for images, links,
>>> form controls, etc.
>>> For some SC, however, the situation is more complex, and I would like to
>>> hear whether you think that mixing different techniques for meeting the
>>> SC on a page would also be OK in these cases. Two examples:
>>> 1.4.3 Contrast (Minimum)
>>> Most parts of text satisfy G18 (sufficient default contrast). Some other
>>> parts have insufficent contrast but satisfy the SC via Technique G174
>>> (style switcher). The switch may be far off the part of text triggering
>>> the need to activate it - for example, at the page start.
>>> 2.4.1 Bypass blocks
>>> Some sections can be bypassed by using skip links (G123), some other
>>> parts use (hidden) headings (H69), one submenu can be bypassed by being
>>> collapsible/expandable (SCR28)
>>> Especially in the second example the problem is obvious: there is no
>>> consistent way to bypass blocks, which could be quite irritating.
>>> However, all content can be bypassed using one or the other of
>>> documented sufficient techniques.
>>> Should WCAG-EM explicitly address this issue? If so, how?
>>> This is not a leading question. I am really uncertain about the best way
>>> to deal with this issue. I just feel it should not be down to personal
>>> evaluator preferences.
>>> Regards,
>>> Detlev
>> --
>> 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)

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, 4 July 2012 21:43:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:40:21 UTC