Re: difference between techniques and procedures

Hi Richard, all

I agree in whole with that

Best

Kerstin

Am 08.06.2012 um 15:18 schrieb "RichardWarren" <richard.warren@userite.com>:

> Dear Shadi and Eval Team,
> 
> I am concerned that we are making things overly complex.
> 
> Our task is to develop a procedure for checking compliance with the Guidelines.
> 
> We are not validating the method/s used by the designer to meet the guidelines. - Yes it makes our job easier if the designer has used specified techniques etc. But the final test is "are there text alternatives for non-text content?", "Does it work properly when using a keyboard?", "Can users avoid and correct mistakes?" etc...
> 
> Now if I use the 'procedures' as listed by W3C to check for compliance with each guideline I can tell the designer that I have done so and that his/her site either complies with the guidelines, or does not. My report will tell the designer which guidelines are complied with and which not. Any third party can check my results using the same procedures.
> 
> That is all I need to do in my role as an evaluator. (Step 4 of section 3 Evaluation Procedure)
> 
> In my role as a consultant I clearly need to do a lot more by identifying why and where it is non-compliant and how the designer should address the problems etc..
> 
> I therefore still believe that steps 1.e and 4b should relate to the procedures used by the evaluator to check for compliance.
> 
> As for Failure Techniques, I agree that they could be better written, but they are more relevant to the designer and consultant (i.e. analysing why/how a failure happens) rather that to the evaluator.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Richard
> 
> -----Original Message----- From: Shadi Abou-Zahra
> Sent: Friday, June 08, 2012 1:03 PM
> To: RichardWarren
> Cc: Eval TF
> Subject: Re: difference between techniques and procedures
> 
> I think we should continue to reference the "Techniques" rather than the
> test procedures which are a sub-part of a technique. The other parts of
> a technique can also be relevant for evaluation, for example the
> "applicability" clauses that an evaluators needs to consider too.
> 
> Also, I think that one of the issues is that WCAG 2.0 and supporting
> documents do not explain "Failure Techniques" ("Common Failures") [1]
> clearly enough. We probably need to describe these a little more.
> 
> [1] <http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/failures.html>
> 
> Best,
>  Shadi
> 
> 
> On 2.6.2012 12:50, RichardWarren wrote:
>> In the light of our discussions on step 1e I think that Step 4b also appears to be confusing. I think we are trying to say that we will record the testing techniques as described at http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/intro.html#intro_testing_techs .
>> 
>> When W3C describes techniques in its techniques collection it refers to these testing techniques as “procedures” at the end of each document under the title “Tests”.  See an example at http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/G1.html#G1-tests
>> 
>> We too should use the words test procedure when we refer to what we do when we check for compliance. This would avoid confusion between the techniques that the web-designer uses to create an accessible page and the processes we, as evaluators, use to check that the page is compliant (either by using a W3C technique, or some other technique).
>> 
>> Richard
> 
> -- 
> 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 Friday, 8 June 2012 13:41:44 UTC