Re: Step 4.c

Hi Shadi, 

I understand it is the conforming alternate which needs to conform.  In my email, I did not alter the definition in any sense.

I thought I had been very clear when I proposed "For each web page associated with a conforming alternate version, check the conforming alternate version (rather than the web page) satisfies each of the WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria of the target conformance level." 

The problem with what you say is that you first have to assess a page (even if it is clear that a conforming alternate version exists), then check the conforming alternate version - which seems overkill.  

It should be that the conforming alternate is assessed first (which I think is also the understanding in WCAG 2.0), then that the web page linking to conforming alternate is only assessed to see if it contains the appropriate mechanism to link to the conforming alternate.

Best 

Alistair

On 21 May 2014, at 18:32, Shadi Abou-Zahra wrote:

> Hi Alistair,
> 
> I agree that the text could be improved.
> 
> The problem is that "conforming alternate version" is linked to its definition, which requires that the alternate version is conforming. That is, you cannot have a "conforming alternate version" that doesn't conform. This probably needs some explanation for clarification.
> 
> Maybe another rewrite for this section could be something like this:
> 
> [[
> WCAG 2.0 allows web pages to have alternate versions so that they meet the conformance requirements. There are specific conditions in which such alternate versions meet the conformance requirements. These are explained in the WCAG 2.0 definition for [conforming alternate versions].
> 
> For each web page in the selected sample that does not meet all of the WCAG 2.0 conformance requirements, check that whether it has an alternate version that meets the conditions for conforming alternate versions. In that case, the web page, along with its conforming alternate version, is considered to conform with WCAG 2.0.
> ]]
> 
> Best,
>  Shadi
> 
> 
> On 19.5.2014 00:16, Alistair Garrison wrote:
>> Dear all,
>> 
>> The way step 4.c is currently worded is perhaps a little hazy, as it does not clearly state that if a proper conforming alternate version has been provided we should assess it, in place of the web page it is provided for - in line with the WCAG 2.0 guidance.
>> 
>> The current check states "Check that each web page and web page state in the selected sample that does not conform to WCAG 2.0 at the target conformance level has a conforming alternate version.  For each of the web pages and web page states in the sample (selected in Step 3: Select a Representative Sample) that does not satisfy any of the five WCAG 2.0 conformance requirements at the conformance target defined in Step 1.b: Define the Conformance Target, check that it has at least one conforming alternate version as defined in WCAG 2.0."
>> 
>> Which sounds a little like check the web page, then check its conforming alternate version - which isn't strictly right.
>> 
>> So, to clarify I would suggest the following replacement wording:
>> 
>> "For each web page associated with a conforming alternate version, check the conforming alternate version (rather than the web page) satisfies each of the WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria of the target conformance level."
>> 
>> Interested to hear thoughts / comments.
>> 
>> Very best regards
>> 
>> Alistair
>> 
> 
> -- 
> 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)

Received on Wednesday, 21 May 2014 18:08:35 UTC