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

Re: [input requested] 3.4.2 Step 4.b: Use WCAG 2.0 Techniques Where Possible (Optional)

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <ez1testing@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 16:10:13 -0400
Cc: WCAG WG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, Eval TF <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
Message-Id: <927A413F-D77D-4F5E-8ADB-50EB6C301712@trace.wisc.edu>
To: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
RESENDING


I think you have it !!

Just a couple small edits to make it easier to read -- plus a sentence in the front talking about other techniques also working.

See attached.   Edits are in square brackets and also colored red. 

(I'm sure people can think of ways to tune this -- but it looks accurate now - and makes the point about other techniques being usable clearly) 

Thanks for your perseverance. 

GRegg



On Sep 13, 2012, at 9:35 AM, Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org> wrote:

> Hi Gregg,
> 
> Thank you for providing these clarifications.
> 
> I'm attaching another version with a new approach to avoid use of some of the confusing terminology such as "Sufficient Techniques". I hope these address the concerns and also help explain how evaluators can make use of techniques and failures to evaluate WCAG 2.0 conformance.
> 
> We may further refine this section during today's Eval TF call and bring in an updated version into today's WCAG WG call.
> 
> Regards,
> Shadi
> 
> 
> On 13.9.2012 06:10, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:
>> Hi Shadi
>> 
>> 
>> Thanks for pulling this together.
>> 
>> I still have problems with this part.
>> 
>> WCAG never defines these terms - yet this doc says they did - and then draws that into other things not said by WCAG and not correct .
>> 
>> The section you are referring to is simply  a description of the support documents  that WCAG working group provided.    As such the ONLY sufficient techniques talked about are the ones in the support docs.   We don't define or discuss any other types - or define that term or advisory.   (we describe some things about OUR sufficient and advisory techniques -- but it is incomplete and just meant to give people an introduction to their existence.    Interpreting it more broadly is what causes a cascade of problems and inaccuracies.
>> 
>> 
>> It is just the small section that is causing problems and they are easily fixed.
>> 
>> The edits I sent straightened them all out -- but you reversed most -- and the problems are now still there.
>> 
>> 
>> I added comments in the document to make it clearer what the problems are --  and re-attached it here.
>> 
>> sorry
>> 
>> Talk to you tomorrow
>> 
>> Gregg
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ===================
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Sep 12, 2012, at 3:22 PM, Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> Dear WCAG WG, Eval TF,
>>> 
>>> We currently have one comment open for discussion, on section 3.4.2 Step 4.b: Use WCAG 2.0 Techniques Where Possible (Optional).
>>> 
>>> Attached are suggested edits by Gregg Vanderheiden (Document1.doc) and the proposed rewrite in response (Step4b_SAZ2.odc) which also contains important discussion in the commentary.
>>> 
>>> Your input on this is needed. Basically we need to be accurate and avoid potential misunderstandings. On the other hand, we also need to offer real guidance that is also easy to understand and follow.
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> Shadi
>>> 
>>> --
>>> 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)
>>> <Step4b_SAZ2.doc><Document1.doc>
>> 
> 
> -- 
> 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)
> <Step4b_SAZ3.doc>




Received on Friday, 14 September 2012 15:33:56 GMT

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