W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wai-evaltf@w3.org > February 2013

Re: Special Web Page Proposal for W3C site - discussing proper use of WCAG Techniques

From: <kvotis@iti.gr>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 09:31:09 +0200
Message-ID: <dbae35f1bb47c7ff5a51b88aa791fe22.squirrel@mail.iti.gr>
To: "Gregg Vanderheiden" <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Cc: "Ram?n Corominas" <rcorominas@technosite.es>, "Eval TF" <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
Dear Gregg

i would like to suggest to include also into the document relevant links
to WAI/WCAG 2.0 for someone that would like to receive more detailed info
tlike the



> On Feb 17, 2013, at 3:53 AM, Ram?n Corominas <rcorominas@technosite.es>
> wrote:
>> Some comments about the document:
>> #1. SUFFICIENT: "Sufficient techniques" are only "sufficient" to meet a
>> Success Criterion if the technique is accessibility supported.
> GV: added.
>> There are many "sufficient" techniques that do not guarantee
>> accessibility if you consider MacOS or Linux platforms (for example,
>> most of the Flash or PDF techniques). This must be clarified.
>> #2. FAILURES: Although, technically speaking, the failures mean direct
>> violations of the Success Criteria, this does not necessarily mean a
>> failure of WCAG 2.0 Conformance, since they may affect content that is
>> not relied upon. In general, any inaccessible content that meets
>> Conformance Requirement #5 may fail the SC, but still allowing
>> Conformance. For example, a totally inaccessible PDF document that is
>> just a "print version" of a completely accessible HTML document.
> GV:  GOOD CATCH.  FIxed.
>> #3. Accessibility: Google Docs is not only inaccessible to blind users,
>> the document is also failing SC 1.4.4 Resize Text (I have low vision and
>> increasing the text size produces overlaps and the content loss).
> GV: which browser are you using.   I can zoom  and enlarge text (wrapping
> ) with out any problem.     Also, my colleagues who are blind tested it
> and said it worked for them.   Hmmm.     Do you have another to suggest
> that is better?
> thanks
>> Regards,
>> Ram?n.
>> Gregg wrote:
>>>> #1. The document does not describe the relationship between techniques
>>>> and failures to the WCAG2 Success Criteria. There is some wording in
>>>> Understanding WCAG 2.0 that could be at least referenced to put this
>>>> resource more in context of the overall WCAG2 framework and resources.
>>> Fixed   See new draft
>>> http://tinyurl.com/WCAGTechNote
>>>> #2. The document seems to primarily talk about techniques and failures
>>>> document by the WCAG WG and does not talk much about the possibility
>>>> for other techniques and failures. This may reinforce the unfortunate
>>>> myth that only WCAG WG can document techniques and failures.
>>> Fixed
>>>> #3. (Minor) the overall tone seems more preventive and negative rather
>>>> than inviting. For example, how about something like "The Role of
>>>> Techniques and Failures in WCAG 2" rather than "Proper Use of WCAG 2.0
>>>> Techniques and Failures"? I think we need to find the balance between
>>>> explaining what techniques and failures are, and cautioning potential
>>>> misuse due to misunderstanding of their intended purpose.
>>> Yes it is.  And after reading it over again (and making edits to
>>> address your comments )  it still is a bit - and I think perhaps it
>>> should be.   (not negative - but short and focused on clarifying rather
>>> than instructing.      "The Role of...."   is all in the Understanding
>>> document.    We were asked for something VERY SHORT and VERY CLEAR
>>> that could be used by people who misunderstood the Role.    I am
>>> concerned that adding more words -- or turning this into a general
>>> discussion -- would defeat what we were asked for. That being said - I
>>> have tried to add more text to the document to help with your comments
>>> above.   Take a look.
Received on Monday, 18 February 2013 07:31:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:40:23 UTC