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

defining list of web browsers and ATs for an evaluation (was Re: initial disposition of comments)

From: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2012 00:56:22 +0100
Message-ID: <4F691926.4080401@w3.org>
To: Amy Chen <amyszuchen@gmail.com>
CC: Eval TF <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>, Eric Velleman <evelleman@bartimeus.nl>
Hi Amy,

Thanks for starting this discussion. Some initial responses inline below 
but I hope that others will chime in too:


On 20.3.2012 23:40, Amy Chen wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> Shadi - Thank you for the very organized list of comments and resolutions.
>
> Just wanted to comment on #89 for Step 1.d.
>
> My comment was to: Take out "minimum set of web browsers and assistive
> technology to evaluate for shall be defined" and take out paragraph "It is
> important to also define the minimum set of web browsers and assistive
> technology to evaluate for."
>
> The resolution on the comment was: "This is part of defining "accessibility
> support"; may need more discussion"
>
> The Understanding Accessibility Support document does not mention anything
> about specifically naming the web browsers or assistive technology. The
> Understanding Accessibility Support document states, "This topic raises the
> question of how many or which assistive technologies must support a Web
> technology in order for that Web technology to be considered "accessibility
> supported". The WCAG Working group and the W3C do not specify which or how
> many assistive technologies must support a Web technology in order for it
> to be classified as accessibility supported."
> http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/conformance.html#uc-accessibility-support-head

Note that this reference continues to say the following too:
[[
The Working Group, therefore, limited itself to defining what 
constituted support and defers the judgment of how much, how many, or 
which AT must support a technology to the community and to entities 
closer to each situation that set requirements for an organization, 
purchase, community, etc.
]]

Aren't we talking about "entities closer to the situation" here?


> Documenting the web browsers and assistive technology used to test may be
> recommended, but not required. Conformance should be agnostic to the web
> browsers and assistive technology used to test. For example, I have seen
> cases where something may not work correctly with JAWS, however, if the
> website was coded correctly according to standards and works with NVDA,
> then it is a JAWS error and not a website conformance error. This is same
> for web browsers where if something is coded correctly according to
> standards and works with one browser and not another browser, then it is a
> browser error and not a website conformance error. Different browsers and
> assistive technologies many times behave differently interpreting the same
> HTML.

Hmmm, well what is "developing to the standard"? A technique needs to be 
accessibility supported and in order to determine that you need to 
consider the behavior of browsers and ATs. No?

Obviously there needs to be some balance between developing around 
software bugs and ignoring the reality that such bugs exist (and that 
impact the user experience). I'd appreciate discussion on how to best 
explain that in an objective and repeatable way.


> Also, the WCAG section on conformance claims state that "A list of user
> agents, including assistive technologies that were used to test the
> content" is optional. The Website Accessibility Conformance Evaluation
> Methodology is to test WCAG conformance, and the WCAG conformance claims
> page states that listing user agents and assistive technologies is
> optional.
> http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#conformance-claims

Reporting about the tools, especially in public, is a separate topic.


Best,
   Shadi


> Thanks,
> Amy
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 3:43 AM, Shadi Abou-Zahra<shadi@w3.org>  wrote:
>
>> Dear Eval TF,
>>
>> Thank you everyone who completed the survey!
>>
>> Please find an initial disposition of the comments received:
>>   -<http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/**conformance/comments<http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments>
>>>
>>
>> Note the section "Comments to Focus on". We will be discussing these
>> comments and issues in our upcoming meetings.
>>
>> Regards,
>>   Shadi
>>
>> --
>> Shadi Abou-Zahra - http://www.w3.org/People/**shadi/<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 Tuesday, 20 March 2012 23:56:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:52:13 GMT