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: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 01:57:24 -0600
To: kvotis@iti.gr
Cc: Ram?n Corominas <rcorominas@technosite.es>, Eval TF <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
Message-id: <9A776B6A-ABDD-480C-B84E-9EB65BF390AF@trace.wisc.edu>
DONE

Gregg
--------------------------------------------------------
Gregg Vanderheiden Ph.D.
Director Trace R&D Center
Professor Industrial & Systems Engineering
and Biomedical Engineering University of Wisconsin-Madison
Technical Director - Cloud4all Project - http://Cloud4all.info
Co-Director, Raising the Floor - International - http://Raisingthefloor.org
and the Global Public Inclusive Infrastructure Project -  http://GPII.net

On Feb 18, 2013, at 1:31 AM, kvotis@iti.gr wrote:

> 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
> http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/intro.html#suff-adv-techs
> 
> 
> regards
> 
> kostas
> 
> 
>> 
>> 
>> 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 07:57:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:52:17 GMT