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

RE: Step 1.e: Define the Techniques to be used

From: Vivienne CONWAY <v.conway@ecu.edu.au>
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2012 11:37:35 +0800
To: RichardWarren <richard.warren@userite.com>, "detlev.fischer@testkreis.de" <detlev.fischer@testkreis.de>, "alistair.j.garrison@gmail.com" <alistair.j.garrison@gmail.com>, "public-wai-evaltf@w3.org" <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
Message-ID: <8AFA77741B11DB47B24131F1E38227A9C29DAD5DDD@XCHG-MS1.ads.ecu.edu.au>
Hi Richard
I've actually been having a long debate (they get pretty excited) with the IG about this one.  According to WCAG 2, 2.4.1. is met if the ST of a correct heading structure is applied.  While I don't agree that having headings should be a sufficient technique on its own (due to the fact it doesn't help keyboard users), it appears to be set in WCAG 2 that way.  It fails 2.4.1 if there are no (working - implied I think) skip links and the heading structure is either non-existent or insufficient to bypass repeated navigation structures.

Your thoughts?


Regards

Vivienne L. Conway, B.IT(Hons), MACS CT, AALIA(cs)
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: RichardWarren [richard.warren@userite.com]
Sent: Friday, 1 June 2012 1:45 AM
To: detlev.fischer@testkreis.de; alistair.j.garrison@gmail.com; public-wai-evaltf@w3.org
Subject: Re: Step 1.e: Define the Techniques to be used

Hi Detlev,

As mentioned before, meeting one individual SC does not mean automatically
meeting the actual guideline subsection. In the case you mention - correct
semantics (headings) can provide a way for blind users to navigate more
easily (incl. skiping blocks). However a sighted keyboard user with a
standard browser does not usually have access to the semantic code in the
way that a screen reader does. So for these users we still need to provide a
"skip" link for long navigation lists at least.

So if "Commissioner says we have implemented skip links to meet 2.4.1 Bypass
Blocks"  then I say great, but you also need to have suitable heading codes
(and possibly something like "skip code samples" if the site is an on-line
course in HTML) so we will check that your site has mechanism/s for
bypassing repetitive blocks and non-informative blocks whilst we are at it
for compliance with guideline 2.4.1.

Richard


-----Original Message-----
From: detlev.fischer@testkreis.de
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2012 4:22 PM
To: alistair.j.garrison@gmail.com ; public-wai-evaltf@w3.org
Subject: Re: Fwd: Step 1.e: Define the Techniques to be used

Hi Alistair, hi all,

Don't know if it is a good idea to answer here since this now goes into the
"Disposition of Comments" but I'll have a go nevertheless.

As I understand it, we need to look for each SC if any of the Sufficient
Techniques (or a set of combined techniques as expressed in the options of
the "How to meet" document) has been suvessfully used. For that, it is not
sufficient to test techniques being put forward by the comissioner.

Example:
* Commissioner says "we have implemented skip links to meet 2.4.1 Bypass
Blocks"
* You evaluate and find that for some reason skip links aren't properly
implemented (fail of that technique)
* There is a proper headings structure that meets SC 4.2.1 (or ARIA
landmarks in a context where that is accessibility supported)

Now as long as you don't hit a failure, I guess you woud need to say pass to
the SC even though the technique submitted did not work.
(Having said that, the faulty skip links may fail other SC, but not SC
2.4.1).

Any thoughts?

Regards,
Detlev

----- Original Message -----
From: alistair.j.garrison@gmail.com
To: public-wai-evaltf@w3.org
Date: 31.05.2012 17:06:52
Subject: Fwd: Step 1.e: Define the Techniques to be used


> Dear All,
>
> Would it be possible to add my comments about Step 1.e to the comments
> document - http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
>> From: Alistair Garrison <alistair.j.garrison@gmail.com>
>> Subject: Step 1.e: Define the Techniques to be used
>> Date: 10 May 2012 10:48:41 CEST
>> To: Eval TF <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
>>
>> Dear All,
>>
>> "Step 1.e: Define the Techniques to be used" - could we consider making
>> this step non-optional?
>>
>> The first reason being that we really need to check their implementation
>> of the techniques (W3C, their own code of best practice or whatever) they
>> say they use.
>>
>> For example:
>>
>> - Case 1) If they have done something by using technique A, and we
>> evaluate using technique B there could be an issue (they might fail B);
>> - Case 2) If they have done something by using technique A, and we
>> evaluate using technique A and B there still could be an issue (they
>> might fail B);
>> - Case 3) If they have done something by using technique A, and we
>> evaluate using technique A - it seems to work.
>>
>> The second reason being that testing seems only to be really replicable
>> if we know what the techniques were they said they implemented -
>> otherwise, two different teams could easily get two different results
>> based on the cases above.
>>
>> I would be interested to hear your thoughts.
>>
>> Very best regards
>>
>> Alistair
>>
>

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 Friday, 1 June 2012 03:40:33 GMT

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