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

Re: Step 1.e: Define the Techniques to be used

From: RichardWarren <richard.warren@userite.com>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 12:28:18 +0100
Message-ID: <6B3E1AC091234A5EBB63D70704F4EFB8@DaddyPC>
To: "Alistair Garrison" <alistair.j.garrison@gmail.com>, "Eval TF" <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
Hi Alistair,

Step 1e - Defining techniques - is in regard to the techniques used by the 
evaluator, not the web developer. The purpose of recording the technique the 
evaluator used is so that any future evaluation or query can identify how 
the evaluator came to his/her conclusion. This step has nothing to do with 
any techniques used by the webdesigner, thus no need to check their code 
etc.

Perhaps the second paragraph of step 1e is confusing the issue (W3C/WAI 
provides a set of publicly documented Techniques for WCAG 2.0 but other 
techniques may be used too) because most of the techniques listed are to do 
with the website not the evaluation.

Richard

-----Original Message----- 
From: Alistair Garrison
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2012 9:48 AM
To: Eval TF
Subject: Step 1.e: Define the Techniques to be used

Dear All,

"Step 1.e: Define the Techniques to be used" - could we consider making this 
step non-optional?

The first reason being that we really need to check their implementation of 
the techniques (W3C, their own code of best practice or whatever) they say 
they use.

For example:

- Case 1) If they have done something by using technique A, and we evaluate 
using technique B there could be an issue (they might fail B);
- Case 2) If they have done something by using technique A, and we evaluate 
using technique A and B there still could be an issue (they might fail B);
- Case 3) If they have done something by using technique A, and we evaluate 
using technique A - it seems to work.

The second reason being that testing seems only to be really replicable if 
we know what the techniques were they said they implemented - otherwise, two 
different teams could easily get two different results based on the cases 
above.

I would be interested to hear your thoughts.

Very best regards

Alistair
Received on Thursday, 10 May 2012 11:28:49 GMT

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