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

Hi Detlev, 

This needs to be debated in light of the other emails in the previous thread.

Answering your points, however, if their intention was to implement a skip link to meet 2.4.1 - and the skip link was defective - would you prefer:

a) to understand their intention was to provide a skip link, to tell them that they failed 2.4.1, and then how to correct the skip link so it works; or 
b) to tell them that they passed 2.4.1 - saying that they passed by some totally unintended means, possibly leaving the defective skip link unreported (although I personally wouldn't say a skip link can be replaced by proper structure - both are useful)…

I know which I would want to hear if I commissioned the report.  

It does, however, show that there are most certainly many areas of overlap within the sufficient techniques.

All the best 

Alistair

On 31 May 2012, at 17:22, detlev.fischer@testkreis.de wrote:

> 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 17:45:51 UTC