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, 31 May 2012 18:45:13 +0100
Message-ID: <B899B63B96FB456992F855A0E37AE2F8@DaddyPC>
To: <detlev.fischer@testkreis.de>, <alistair.j.garrison@gmail.com>, <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
Hi Detlev,

As mentioned before, meeting one individual SC does not mean automatically 
meeting the actual guideline subsection. In the case you mention - correct 
semantics (headings) can provide a way for blind users to navigate more 
easily (incl. skiping blocks). However a sighted keyboard user with a 
standard browser does not usually have access to the semantic code in the 
way that a screen reader does. So for these users we still need to provide a 
"skip" link for long navigation lists at least.

So if "Commissioner says we have implemented skip links to meet 2.4.1 Bypass 
Blocks"  then I say great, but you also need to have suitable heading codes 
(and possibly something like "skip code samples" if the site is an on-line 
course in HTML) so we will check that your site has mechanism/s for 
bypassing repetitive blocks and non-informative blocks whilst we are at it 
for compliance with guideline 2.4.1.

Richard


-----Original Message----- 
From: detlev.fischer@testkreis.de
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2012 4:22 PM
To: alistair.j.garrison@gmail.com ; public-wai-evaltf@w3.org
Subject: Re: Fwd: Step 1.e: Define the Techniques to be used

Hi Alistair, hi all,

Don't know if it is a good idea to answer here since this now goes into the 
"Disposition of Comments" but I'll have a go nevertheless.

As I understand it, we need to look for each SC if any of the Sufficient 
Techniques (or a set of combined techniques as expressed in the options of 
the "How to meet" document) has been suvessfully used. For that, it is not 
sufficient to test techniques being put forward by the comissioner.

Example:
* Commissioner says "we have implemented skip links to meet 2.4.1 Bypass 
Blocks"
* You evaluate and find that for some reason skip links aren't properly 
implemented (fail of that technique)
* There is a proper headings structure that meets SC 4.2.1 (or ARIA 
landmarks in a context where that is accessibility supported)

Now as long as you don't hit a failure, I guess you woud need to say pass to 
the SC even though the technique submitted did not work.
(Having said that, the faulty skip links may fail other SC, but not SC 
2.4.1).

Any thoughts?

Regards,
Detlev

----- Original Message -----
From: alistair.j.garrison@gmail.com
To: public-wai-evaltf@w3.org
Date: 31.05.2012 17:06:52
Subject: Fwd: Step 1.e: Define the Techniques to be used


> Dear All,
>
> Would it be possible to add my comments about Step 1.e to the comments 
> document - http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
>> From: Alistair Garrison <alistair.j.garrison@gmail.com>
>> Subject: Step 1.e: Define the Techniques to be used
>> Date: 10 May 2012 10:48:41 CEST
>> To: Eval TF <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
>>
>> 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, 31 May 2012 17:45:43 GMT

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