Re: Step 1.e: Define the Techniques as used

Hi all,

additional to what is said above: a page without any technique would be like a txt (without the txt-techniques) saved as .html. Any Markup would be a following of a technique which would mean that "defining the techniques" will be filling out a huge paper/form and asking for p, hx, li, and so on.

Even if we would require the defining of "some" (which) techniques developers need lot of time filling out this questionnare or documenting the techniques. And there also might be cases where the SC is met and the technique was not documented before. After this the evaluator would check the techniques which I believe is not compliant with WCAG2. For the evaluator the testing procedures are important for the basic report. Techniques - WCAG or others - are important when a developers is writing a report with solutions for problems.

Another issue are the use cases: if defining the techniques would be a requirement it wouldn't be possible to use WCAG-EM for comparative studies and tests or for something like "test of the week".

I agree with Richard that we should rewrite 1e.

Best

Kerstin

Am 01.06.2012 um 23:08 schrieb Aurélien Levy <aurelien.levy@temesis.com>:

> Hi,
>> 
>> But, on the other hand IF they say they have not followed any techniques (as Aurélien suggests) you would of course be free to evaluate whatever you see fit.
> I didn't suggest that they don't follow any techniques, they just follow it without knowing it. For example using alt or title attribut is a well known technique for SEO, using hx element also, using th element instead of td or caption in data table is just basic html knowledge not accessibility. They also can know some "accessibility related" tricks skip links because they have seen it on a lot of other website.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Aurélien
>

Received on Saturday, 2 June 2012 06:22:28 UTC