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

AW: Techniques, Procedures, and Checklists (aside)

From: Kerstin Probiesch <k.probiesch@googlemail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 17:29:20 +0200
To: "'Alistair Garrison'" <alistair.j.garrison@gmail.com>, "'Eval TF'" <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
Message-ID: <4fda0314.c882cc0a.5cf7.71b4@mx.google.com>
Hi Alistair,

> I'd still like to know how you (Kerstein Probiesch) actually know when
> 'Rome' is reached? 

Rome is reached when a person has arrived at this destination.

> And, again I would ask - Do you follow a check list,
> or is it gut feeling?

Evaluation procedures are quite similar to WCAG-EM and depending on the
contract I use one of the three versions of the template.

Best

Kerstin

> 
> 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 15:29:00 GMT

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