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

Re: Techniques, Procedures, and Checklists (aside)

From: Alistair Garrison <alistair.j.garrison@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 15:17:35 +0200
Message-Id: <D9345B87-BF84-41B2-969F-BB01938D1C45@gmail.com>
To: Kerstin Probiesch <k.probiesch@googlemail.com>, Eval TF <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
Hi Kerstin, 

Shadi's responses to my questions were respectfully clear.  This is not part of Shadi's attempted summary, so I have changed the thread.

I'd still like to know how you (Kerstein Probiesch) actually know when 'Rome' is reached? And, again I would ask - Do you follow a check list, or is it gut feeling?

Alistair

On 14 Jun 2012, at 14:10, Kerstin Probiesch wrote:

> Hi Alistair,
> 
> even if a technique can be submitted it doesn't mean that it will be
> submitted. Until a technique is accepted and an updated version of WCAG2 is
> published time goes by and it would mean, that a working technique couldn't
> be used because it is not part of the techniques document. We should also
> consider that we speak not only about HTML and ARIA but also about PDF,
> where there are discussions about (as I understood 'differences') between
> WCAG 2.0 techniques and PDF/UA techniques.
> 
> There are many ways to rome and a way is successful if rome is reached, even
> when the route is not one of the suggested route in existing street maps.
> Let's see the WCAG 2.0 as something like this: even when I don't think about
> going to rome but to a friend's house in an area nearby google maps gives me
> a route which would indicate, that I have to follow a route which will take
> me a 17 minutes (walk). Instead of taking this route I tested a small way
> through the forest without any problem and which took me just 8 minutes.
> (the time is not that much important, even if this way would take also 17
> minutes, I would take this one, because it's nice. Google Maps doesn't even
> show this way on the map, because they don't know about it. Would I submit
> the way to google maps? I don't know. Would I submit this way to open street
> map? Perhaps. Anyway: if someone would ask me for the route to this area I
> would suggest the way I took successfully several times before, even when
> google maps doesn't show and know anything about it. With the techniques I
> think it's similar. If I can reach my goal successfully everything is fine,
> even if the technique is not part of the document. The comparison falls a
> bit short and I don't want to say that the sufficient techniques are bad,
> complicated, not fast enough and so on. But what do we know about the future
> and all techniques used in all relevant technologies? And we should also
> motivate developers not only in using the sufficient techniques but also in
> developing new techniques.
> 
> Best
> 
> Kerstin
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Von: Alistair Garrison [mailto:alistair.j.garrison@gmail.com] 
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 14. Juni 2012 11:44
> An: Shadi Abou-Zahra; Eval TF
> Betreff: Re: [attempted summary] Techniques, Procedures, and Checklists
> 
> Hi Shadi, 
> 
> All sounds fine… 
> 
> But, can I just check… 
> 
> Say I'm an evaluator with my own set of direct checks for WCAG 2.0
> SCs… Would it be the case that in order to use each of my own checks for
> conformance - I really should create a technique, provide the check I wish
> to use as a way to evaluate this technique, and then publish it - so it can
> become a publicly documented, vetted, and broadly consensed/recognized
> Technique.  I suppose it could even be published through the "Techniques for
> WCAG 2.0 submission form"... http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/TECHS-SUBMIT/ 
> 
> All the best 
> 
> Alistair  
> 
> On 14 Jun 2012, at 11:25, Shadi Abou-Zahra wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi Alistair,
> 
> As far as I know WCAG WG is very clear that the instance of Techniques that
> they publish are *not* exhaustive and *not* exclusive. In fact, they
> encourage the development of Techniques by technology developers, specific
> to different languages and regions, or specific to particular contexts (for
> example in a particular network setting or such).
> 
> However, they *do* encourage the use of publicly documented, vetted, and
> broadly consensed/recognized Techniques for the particular context (country,
> region, technology, etc) for development and evaluation.
> 
> The emphasis is clearly on the Success Criteria rather than on the
> Techniques, which is why they are optional in the methodology.
> 
> Regards,
>  Shadi
> 
> 
> On 14.6.2012 11:11, Alistair Garrison wrote:
> 
> Hi Shadi,
> 
> With all the debate, I think the "elephant in the room" question is for the
> W3C/WAI WCAG 2.0 WG to clearly answer:
> 
> "Do they envisage, and wish to encourage, WCAG 2.0 SCs to be evaluated
> directly using an evaluators own checks and intuition; or do they envisage,
> and wish to encourage, WCAG 2.0 SCs to be evaluated through the test
> procedures from the _instances_ of 'sufficient' Techniques (and failure
> conditions) that they regularly publish?"
> 
> All the best
> 
> Alistair
> 
> On 14 Jun 2012, at 10:38, Shadi Abou-Zahra wrote:
> 
> Dear Eval TF,
> 
> There has been a lengthy discussion with many different points raised in it.
> This is an attempt to summarize key points to try and draw out some
> decisions; please add clarifications or points I may have missed.
> 
> 
> #1. Making the use of Techniques mandatory
> 
> The thread was initiated in a request to make Step 1.e "Define the
> Techniques" to be used as non-optional. Here is the initial mail:
> -<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-evaltf/2012May/0008>
> 
> It seems that the base assumption for this request is that developers will
> use documented Techniques and provide a comprehensive list to an evaluator
> to check. Several people have responded that this model may not always work,
> and that the methodology also needs to work when the evaluator has no
> information about how the website has been developed.
> 
> *Suggested action:* decide if Step 1.e should be optional or mandatory.
> 
> 
> #2. Difference between Techniques and Failures
> 
> A second related thread was initiated in a request to use the term "Test
> Procedure" rather than "Technique": Here is the initial mail:
> -<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-evaltf/2012Jun/0019>
> 
> It seems that the motivation for this request is to differentiate between
> guidance that the developer follows to implement accessibility features and
> checks that the evaluator uses to determine barriers. It seems that the
> misunderstanding stems from the fact that WCAG 2 uses "Techniques" as an
> umbrella term for both "Sufficient Techniques" and "General Failures". Also
> "General Failures" seem less well explained.
> 
> *Suggest action:* revise how we refer to and explain "WCAG Failures".
> 
> 
> #3. Open-ended concept of WCAG 2 Techniques
> 
> Throughout the discussion there seems to be misunderstandings around the
> _concept_ of Techniques (the umbrella term) and the _instances_ of
> Techniques that are regularly published by the WCAG Working Group. It seems
> that this point also relates to the previous point about the clarity of
> explanations in WCAG 2, especially for evaluators.
> 
> While we are not chartered to develop Techniques (including "General
> Failures") nor to edit the supporting documents for WCAG 2 ("Techniques for
> WCAG 2.0" and "Understanding WCAG 2.0"), we can suggest changes to the WCAG
> WG. We can also add specific explanations and references that are
> particularly relevant to evaluators in our methodology.
> 
> *Suggest action:* explore potential improvements to WCAG 2 resources from
> the perspective of evaluators.
> 
> 
> Regards,
>  Shadi
> 
> --
> 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)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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 Thursday, 14 June 2012 13:18:16 GMT

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