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

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

From: Kerstin Probiesch <k.probiesch@googlemail.com>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 21:37:57 +0200
Message-Id: <ACADF843-4C93-4486-A931-C77BAEEC114E@gmail.com>
Cc: Kerstin Probiesch <k.probiesch@googlemail.com>, Eval TF <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
To: Alistair Garrison <alistair.j.garrison@gmail.com>
Hi Alistair,

as long as the SC is met, it is not important which technique is used. It's not throwing their techniques choice out of the window because if the SC is met everything is fine. A problem is the following: testing against sufficient techniques. In this case the developer has no chance for own techniques which is not the idea of WCAG2. I think an evaluator will know if an SC is met regardless which technique is used. Therefore 1e leads to the situation that people look more for techniques and less for the SCs. Making 1e as required will close the door to new techniques and I fear could lead to the situation that evaluators are telling people to choose their faved techniques. Therefore 1e should be deleted.



Am 31.05.2012 um 20:52 schrieb Alistair Garrison <alistair.j.garrison@gmail.com>:

> Hi Kerstin, 
> This is the problem which was indicated in the previous email thread on this subject.
> By refusing to evaluate against the techniques which the web developer said they followed - you, the evaluator, are throwing their techniques choice out the window and unwittingly imposing your own techniques (what you look to evaluate) on them…  which to my mind is way more prescriptive, and surely against ideals of WCAG 2.0… 
> To avoid this situation - 1.e is needed, and it needs to be non-optional...
> All the best 
> Alistair
> On 31 May 2012, at 20:11, Kerstin Probiesch wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> we are evaluating the SCs and the subsections, we are not evaluating techniques. If an SC is not met one can write a description of the problem and a solution (depending on one of the three templates used). Instead of making 1e non-optional we should delete 1e.
>> Regs
>> Kerstin
>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>>> Von: RichardWarren [mailto:richard.warren@userite.com]
>>> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 31. Mai 2012 19:45
>>> An: detlev.fischer@testkreis.de; alistair.j.garrison@gmail.com; public-
>>> wai-evaltf@w3.org
>>> Betreff: Re: Step 1.e: Define the Techniques to be used
>>> 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 19:37:59 UTC

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