- From: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 22 May 2014 10:13:12 +0200
- To: Alistair Garrison <alistair.j.garrison@gmail.com>
- CC: Eval TF <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
Hi Alistair, You make a valid point about testing the web page in one step, then coming back to check its alternate versions in a second step. Also WCAG2 puts both steps together in the first conformance requirement: - http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#cc1 Maybe we ought to roll together 4.a and 4.c? Best, Shadi On 21.5.2014 22:12, Alistair Garrison wrote: > Although, I would concede that the non-conforming page would need to be checked to make sure it complied with at least one of the "Sufficient Techniques for Providing Conforming Alternative Versions of Web pages" - but, only as far as that. > > So I would amend my proposal for a change to Step 4.c to: > > "For each web page associated with a conforming alternate version, check the web page complies with at least one of the sufficient techniques for providing conforming alternative versions of web pages and check the conforming alternate version (rather than the web page) satisfies each of the WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria of the target conformance level". > > Alistair > > > On 21 May 2014, at 20:45, Alistair Garrison wrote: > >> From the WCAG 2.0 conformance requirements for conforming alternate versions it states: >> >> "Note 4: Alternate versions may be provided to accommodate different technology environments or user groups. Each version should be as conformant as possible. One version would need to be fully conformant in order to meet conformance requirement 1." >> >> It does not mention checking non-conformant versions - simply that efforts should be made to make them as conformant as possible. So I don't really see why you think "skipping the non-conforming page and checking the conforming alternate version is not in line with the WCAG conformance requirements". >> >> Is there something I have missed, or not read? >> >> Alistair >> >> On 21 May 2014, at 20:22, Detlev Fischer wrote: >> >>> Hi Alistair, >>> >>> The point I made was that simply skipping the non-conforming page and checking the conforming alternate version is not in line with the WCAG conformance requirements, an argument which you apparently find too silly to address. Fine. Maybe we better stop here and let others chime in. >>> >>> Detlev >>> >>> >>>> You already know a page with a conforming alternate version will not conform - even the website owner already knows it does not conform, hence the reason they provided the conforming alternate version. >>>> >>>> Therefore, to me there seems little point in evaluating the obviously "non conforming version" in the sample - unless it is for your own piece of mind (which the client will have to pay you for)… >>>> >>>> It just seems a little silly. Hope this helps. >>>> >>>> All the best >>>> >>>> Alistair >>>> >>>> On 21 May 2014, at 19:34, Detlev Fischer wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Alistair, >>>>> >>>>> In the definition of 'conforming alternate version' >>>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/conformance.html#conforming-alternate-versiondef >>>>> >>>>> ...I read "Each version should be as conformant as possible." which to me strongly suggests that the (not fully conforming) default page should also be checked. >>>>> >>>>> Not to forget Conformance requirement 5 "Non-interference" which lists 4 SC and goes on to explain that (quote) "these Success Criteria need to be met for all content including content created using technologies that are not accessibility supported." >>>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/conformance.html#uc-conf-req5-head >>>>> >>>>> From a user perspective (and examples given) it seems clear that the conforming alternate version serves as a crutch where some part of the content cannot be made to conform. This also means that the rest on the default page should conform as much as possible. For me this is a strong rationale to check this default page as well for SC that are *not* covered by the conforming alternate version, and not to skip it and just check the conforming alternate version. >>>>> >>>>> Any thoughts on this? >>>>> >>>>> As a final note, I have yet to encounter recently developed web content that is marked as conforming alternate version. Does anyone know of examples to look at? >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> Detlev >>>>> >>>>> On 21 May 2014, at 20:08, Alistair Garrison <alistair.j.garrison@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> conforming alternate >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Detlev Fischer >>>>> testkreis - das Accessibility-Team von feld.wald.wiese >>>>> c/o feld.wald.wiese >>>>> Thedestraße 2 >>>>> 22767 Hamburg >>>>> >>>>> Tel +49 (0)40 439 10 68-3 >>>>> Mobil +49 (0)1577 170 73 84 >>>>> Fax +49 (0)40 439 10 68-5 >>>>> >>>>> http://www.testkreis.de >>>>> Beratung, Tests und Schulungen für barrierefreie Websites >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> Detlev Fischer >>> testkreis - das Accessibility-Team von feld.wald.wiese >>> c/o feld.wald.wiese >>> Thedestraße 2 >>> 22767 Hamburg >>> >>> Tel +49 (0)40 439 10 68-3 >>> Mobil +49 (0)1577 170 73 84 >>> Fax +49 (0)40 439 10 68-5 >>> >>> http://www.testkreis.de >>> Beratung, Tests und Schulungen für barrierefreie Websites >>> >>> >>> >>> >> > > > -- 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 Thursday, 22 May 2014 08:13:42 UTC