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

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

From: Detlev Fischer <detlev.fischer@testkreis.de>
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2012 10:14:41 +0200
Message-Id: <66D62A12-CE3D-4F6D-8F47-8528F523BC6D@testkreis.de>
To: Eval TF <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
Hi Alistair,

I'll leave it to others to reply as I have made my position clear (I  
hope). Just one clarification. You write:

> So, I'd really like to ask - "is 1.e being non-optional only  
> objectionable to those who operate a third-party 'set in stone'  
> evaluation methodology?" - as they could not possibly think of  
> assessing anything other than they have already decided to assess…


I was trying to point out that the procedure must *not* be set in  
stone, i.e. check only for very specific techniques since it might  
miss other ways of meeting the Success Criteria. The assessment  
methods are often not tied to a particular technique anyway. If you  
check for keyboard operability, proper focus order, focus visibilty  
etc might have been created in a variety of ways. You just check, in  
the set of selected UA, by tabbing, activating links, and so on if the  
page actually affords proper keyboard operability - not necessarily  
how, by which technique, this has been achieved.

Regards,
Detlev

On 1 Jun 2012, at 08:42, Alistair Garrison wrote:

> Dear All,
>
> The fact that evaluators each can have their own take even on WCAG  
> 2.0 is proof enough that 1.e is needed - and should be non- 
> optional.  If we fail to record the techniques selected and followed  
> by the web developer, and ideally tested agains, what hope do we  
> have of creating evaluations which are reproducible… or, indeed  
> which provide useful feedback as to failings in implementation -  
> and, importantly failings in technique selection.
>
> To my mind, a goal of WCAG 2.0 is to let the web developer decide  
> which techniques they believe satisfy the Success Criteria of WCAG  
> 2.0 - and, the evaluators job to test what they have done.   That  
> said, there will be a good deal of work ahead in educating people as  
> to what satisfies each Success Criteria - and, 1.e being non- 
> optional could play an important role.
>
> On a different note - if we look at an evaluation carried out by the  
> same company that creates the website (first party) it would be  
> laughable if they tested against anything but the techniques their  
> developers used to create the website - why would they…  For them,  
> following 1.e would be a 'no-brainer'…
>
> So, I'd really like to ask - "is 1.e being non-optional only  
> objectionable to those who operate a third-party 'set in stone'  
> evaluation methodology?" - as they could not possibly think of  
> assessing anything other than they have already decided to assess…
>
> Interested to hear any thoughts…
>
> All the best
>
> Alistair
>
> On 1 Jun 2012, at 05:37, Vivienne CONWAY wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>>
>

-- 
Detlev Fischer
testkreis - das Accessibility-Team von feld.wald.wiese
c/o feld.wald.wiese
Borselstraße 3-7 (im Hof)
22765 Hamburg

Tel   +49 (0)40 439 10 68-3
Mobil +49 (0)1577 170 73 84
Fax   +49 (0)40 439 10 68-5

http://www.testkreis.de
Beratung, Tests und Schulungen für barrierefreie Websites
Received on Friday, 1 June 2012 08:06:25 GMT

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