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

A question about Step 4.b: Use WCAG 2.0 Techniques Where Possible

From: Detlev Fischer <detlev.fischer@testkreis.de>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 09:35:27 +0200
Message-Id: <1ED49C62-C12D-4929-9A5A-DBD0FCF10504@testkreis.de>
To: Eval TF <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
Hi all,

I'd like to hear your views regarding a particular problem when using  
Sufficient Techniques to check whether a page conforms.

I take it that generally, the procedure might look like this:

1. Check if one of the numbered Sufficient Techniques (or options  
grouping techniques) has been used successfully
2. Check whether another (yet undocumented) Technique has been used  
AND can be deemed sufficient / AT-supported
3. Check if one of the Failures documented for that SC applies

As we work through a page, there will often be situations where  
particular instances of content use one technique and other instances  
use a different technique. This is quite acceptable for images, links,  
form controls, etc.

For some SC, however, the situation is more complex, and I would like  
to hear whether you think that mixing different techniques for meeting  
the SC on a page would also be OK in these cases. Two examples:

1.4.3 Contrast (Minimum)
Most parts of text satisfy G18 (sufficient default contrast). Some  
other parts have insufficent contrast but satisfy the SC via Technique  
G174 (style switcher). The switch may be far off the part of text  
triggering the need to activate it - for example, at the page start.

2.4.1 Bypass blocks
Some sections can be bypassed by using skip links (G123), some other  
parts use (hidden) headings (H69), one submenu can be bypassed by  
being collapsible/expandable (SCR28)

Especially in the second example the problem is obvious: there is no  
consistent way to bypass blocks, which could be quite irritating.  
However, all content can be bypassed using one or the other of  
documented sufficient techniques.

Should WCAG-EM explicitly address this issue? If so, how?

This is not a leading question. I am really uncertain about the best  
way to deal with this issue. I just feel it should not be down to  
personal evaluator preferences.

Regards,
Detlev

-- 
Detlev Fischer
testkreis - das Accessibility-Team von feld.wald.wiese
c/o feld.wald.wiese
Borselstraße 3-7 (im Hof)
22765 Hamburg

Tel   +49 (0)40 439 10 68-3
Mobil +49 (0)1577 170 73 84
Fax   +49 (0)40 439 10 68-5

http://www.testkreis.de
Beratung, Tests und Schulungen für barrierefreie Websites
Received on Tuesday, 26 June 2012 07:26:29 GMT

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