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

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

From: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 11:29:44 +0200
Message-ID: <4FE98108.5040100@w3.org>
To: Detlev Fischer <detlev.fischer@testkreis.de>
CC: Eval TF <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
Hi Detlev,

To your question:
> Should WCAG-EM explicitly address this issue? If so, how?

No, I don't think WCAG-EM should address this explicitly as these are 
interpretations of the Success Criteria.

Having said that, I encourage people to send feedback to WCAG Working 
Group so that issues can be identified and fixed (likely through the 
Techniques or Understanding documents).

Maybe in the phase where we test our methodology in practice we could 
also collect these observations and send as a collective feedback from 
Eval TF to the WCAG WG.


On 26.6.2012 09:35, Detlev Fischer wrote:
> 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

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 Tuesday, 26 June 2012 09:30:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:40:21 UTC