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

AW: difference between techniques and procedures

From: Kerstin Probiesch <k.probiesch@googlemail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 12:34:57 +0200
To: "'Alistair Garrison'" <alistair.j.garrison@gmail.com>, "'Eval TF'" <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
Message-ID: <4fd86c96.4494cc0a.26c9.63af@mx.google.com>
Hi Alistair,

> I asked you this before, but got no reply. Do you evaluate against a
> checklist for WCAG 2.0 which you have developed? or is it something
> else?

Sorry. Seems I forgot to answer that question.

I'm using the templates which we have in our WCAG-EM, depending on what the
contract says (just the passes/fails, passes/fails with decription of
findings, passes/fails with descriptions of findings and solutions for the
problems). Sometimes I add in a summary a table how many SCs are not met in
full for A, AA and AAA.

Cheers

Kerstin




> 
> All the best
> 
> Alistair
> 
> On 13 Jun 2012, at 09:09, Kerstin Probiesch wrote:
> 
> > Hi Shadi, all,
> >
> > I don't think that it is a problem to use the term "testing
> procedures" because this is actually what an evaluator is doing.
> >
> > A lot of discussions about the relevance of the techniques has shown
> that there are many misunderstandings and that many developers (and not
> only developers) are thinking that it is just allowed to use techniques
> which are in the techniques document. If we use ' techniques' even as
> 'optional' I fear that we will bring in more confusion in this
> discussion and I think it is likely that some take the template     but
> use techniques or much worse an own sample of preferred techniques as
> subsections.
> >
> > Best
> >
> > Kerstin
> >
> > Via Mobile
> >
> > Am 12.06.2012 um 23:51 schrieb Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>:
> >
> >> Hi Mike,
> >>
> >> Yes, it has been a lengthy thread with different points raised.
> >>
> >> As to your comment, I don't think it is a good idea to coin new
> terms. WCAG already differentiates between "Techniques" and "General
> Failures".
> >>
> >> I think we are trying to fix the wrong problem...
> >>
> >> Best,
> >> Shadi
> >>
> >>
> >> On 12.6.2012 21:30, Michael S Elledge wrote:
> >>> Hi All--
> >>>
> >>> This has been a long and exhaustive (exhausting?) thread. I think
> >>> referring to our evaluations as "procedures" and developer methods
> as
> >>> "techniques" will help to reduce confusion. I also agree that it is
> >>> important to remember that ultimately our role as evaluators is to
> >>> determine whether a client has met the success criteria established
> by
> >>> the W3C in WCAG 2.0. While it may add value to point a client to a
> >>> better technique than he/she is using, especially if their
> technique has
> >>> failed, it is not necessary to accomplishing our goal as evaluator.
> >>>
> >>> Mike
> >>>
> >>> On 6/8/2012 8:19 PM, Vivienne CONWAY wrote:
> >>>> Hi Richard and all
> >>>> I've been following the discussion, but sadly was too snowed under
> >>>> (and that's really hard in Australia!) until this morning to
> respond.
> >>>>
> >>>> I think Richard that you capture my thoughts very concisely. In
> >>>> reality what methods the designer uses to meet the guidelines
> isn't
> >>>> really the issue for us as evaluators. We need to look at what
> methods
> >>>> he's used to see if he's found something different that works, but
> >>>> mostly we are checking to see that whatever techniques he uses
> meets
> >>>> the guidelines. As you said, if there are images, they must have
> >>>> meaningful alternatives and conform with the guidelines for 1.1.1
> .I
> >>>> think we should, cite the failures - particularly if the designer
> has
> >>>> clearly used a documented failure technique in the design.
> >>>>
> >>>> In our reporting, we obviously can talk about what different
> >>>> techniques the designer used to meet the guidelines and what we
> did to
> >>>> test those features. But we do need to document carefully the
> >>>> procedures we used for testing. In my reporting, I also describe
> why
> >>>> certain things the designer has done are not compliant, and
> provide
> >>>> suggestions for things he could do that would remedy this.
> >>>>
> >>>> I think in the end if we reference our EM, that will cover a lot
> of
> >>>> the 'how' we tested part. I also think I'd like to see more work
> done
> >>>> on the Failure Techniques. I think that would help a lot of
> designers
> >>>> - in my mind that is who these are primarily written for. They
> help us
> >>>> in that we can point the designer to the Failure Technique so they
> can
> >>>> see the documentation of why a certain technique is not
> acceptable.
> >>>>
> >>>> Hope that all makes sense?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> 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, 8 June 2012 9:18 PM
> >>>> To: Shadi Abou-Zahra
> >>>> Cc: Eval TF
> >>>> Subject: Re: difference between techniques and procedures
> >>>>
> >>>> 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)
> >>>>
> >>>> 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
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> --
> >> 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, 13 June 2012 10:34:28 GMT

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