W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-au@w3.org > July to September 2012

Example of exist criteria - including criteria at risk

From: Richards, Jan <jrichards@ocadu.ca>
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 20:20:12 +0000
To: "w3c-wai-au@w3.org" <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
Message-ID: <0B1EB1C972BCB740B522ACBCD5F48DEB03AECBE8@ocadmail-maildb.ocad.ca>
Hi all,

To see a more concrete example of W3C "Exit Criteria" and "Criteria at Risk", take a look at WCAG's "Exit Criteria" section when it went to CR:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/CR-WCAG20-20080430/

Cheers,
Jan


(MR) JAN RICHARDS
PROJECT MANAGER
INCLUSIVE DESIGN RESEARCH CENTRE (IDRC)
OCAD UNIVERSITY

T 416 977 6000 x3957
F 416 977 9844
E jrichards@ocadu.ca


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richards, Jan
> Sent: September-17-12 4:17 PM
> To: w3c-wai-au@w3.org
> Subject: ATAG 2.0 test writing assignments
> 
> See format here: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-
> au/2012JulSep/0035.html
> 
> Guideline A.3.1: (For the authoring tool user interface) Provide keyboard
> access to authoring features - Tim Guideline A.4.2: (For the authoring tool
> user interface) Document the user interface including all accessibility
> features. - Jan (also doing B.1.1 and 2) Guideline A.3.7: (For the authoring
> tool user interface) Ensure that previews are at least as accessible as in-
> market user agents. - Greg Guideline A.3.6: (For the authoring tool user
> interface) Manage preference settings. - Jeanne
> 
> Cheers,
> Jan
> 
> 
> (MR) JAN RICHARDS
> PROJECT MANAGER
> INCLUSIVE DESIGN RESEARCH CENTRE (IDRC)
> OCAD UNIVERSITY
> 
> T 416 977 6000 x3957
> F 416 977 9844
> E jrichards@ocadu.ca
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Richards, Jan
> > Sent: September-17-12 4:07 PM
> > To: w3c-wai-au@w3.org
> > Subject: Minutes from AUWG Teleconference on 17 Sept 2012 3:00pm-
> > 4:00pm ET (Today)
> >
> > http://www.w3.org/2012/09/17-au-minutes.html
> >
> > Full text:
> > WAI AU
> > 17 Sep 2012
> >
> > Agenda
> >
> > See also: IRC log
> > Attendees
> >
> > Present
> >     Jan, Jeanne, Alex, Jutta, Cherie, +1.571.765.aaaa, Greg,
> > Tim_Boland Regrets
> >     Jutta, T.
> > Chair
> >     Jan Richards
> > Scribe
> >     jeanne
> >
> > Contents
> >
> >     Topics
> >         1. What to do with B.4.1.3 Feature Availability Information
> >         2. Other issues from the larger group?
> >     Summary of Action Items
> >
> > <scribe> scribe: jeanne
> >
> > <Jan> scribe: Jeanne
> >
> > <Jan>
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2012JulSep/0040.html
> > 1. What to do with B.4.1.3 Feature Availability Information
> >
> > JR: This came up while writing tests.
> >
> > <Jan> B.4.1.3 Feature Availability Information: If the authoring tool
> > supports production of any web content technologies for publishing for
> > which the authoring tool does not provide support for the production
> > of accessible web content (WCAG), then this is documented. (Level AA)
> > Note: This success criterion concerns the presence or absence of
> > support features, such as accessibility checkers, not...
> >
> > <Jan> ...any intrinsic property of web content technologies.
> >
> > JR: Tools come in many formats, so you need to document in the tool
> > that any formats that do not meet ATAG need to be documented.
> > ... this is difficult to do from a testing viewpoint
> >
> > <Jan> 6. A list of the *web content technologies produced by the
> > authoring tool that are included in the claim*. If there are any web
> > content technologies produced by the authoring tool that are *not
> > included* in the conformance claim, these must be listed separately.
> > <NEW>If the authoring tool produces any web content technologies by
> > default, then these must be *included*.</NEW>
> >
> > JR: and the documentation can be buried in a manual, so it would not
> > be useful.
> > ... So if a tool produces a web content technology by default, then
> > that must be included for ATAG conformance.
> > ... you cannot side-step the ATAG conformance.
> >
> > GP: If the default content is NOT a web content technology, then it
> > does not apply.
> >
> > JR: Example: a word processing program does not produce a web content
> > technology by default, but does have a save as HTML option ... it can
> > conform for the HTML, but does not have to file on the .doc document
> > format
> >
> > GP: it seems ok
> > ... On the flip side, the default format can be accessible, even if it
> > is not a web content technology.
> >
> > AL: I know what a "default" is, but I can anticipate that some people
> > might ask what the default is for that tool. Other tools may produce
> > many different formats without a default.
> >
> > <Jan> 6. A list of the *web content technologies produced by the
> > authoring tool that are included in the claim*. If there are any web
> > content technologies produced by the authoring tool that are *not
> > included* in the conformance claim, these must be listed separately.
> > <NEW>If the authoring tool produces any web content technologies by
> > default, then these must be *included*.</NEW>
> >
> > <Jan> All: No objections heard...
> >
> > JR: SO B.4.1.3 will be deleted and this will be added to B.4.1.1
> >
> > <Jan> Resolved: Add the new sentence to 6. A list of the *web content
> > technologies produced by the authoring tool that are included in the
> claim*.
> > If there are any web content technologies produced by the authoring
> > tool that are *not included* in the conformance claim, these must be
> > listed separately. <NEW>If the authoring tool produces any web content
> > technologies by default, then these must be...
> >
> > <Jan> ...*included*.</NEW>
> >
> > <Jan> Resolved: To remove SC B.4.1.3 Feature Availability Information 2.
> > Other issues from the larger group?
> >
> > GP: Can you recap where we are?
> >
> > JR: We have finished Last Call and we could go into CR at any time,
> > but we are settling our testing before we set up our exit criteria from CR.
> >
> > GP: so how many test cases have to go through this before we are
> > satisfied and W3C is satisfied.
> >
> > JR: We set a test cases, a test approach and our exit criteria.
> > ... then we go and talk to those powers.
> >
> > JS: An important part of the Exit Criteria is idenfying problem areas
> > and what we will do about them. otherwise we have to go back to Last
> > Call to change the document.
> >
> > AL: then we need to be very flexible and accept tools that only do a
> > few things
> >
> > JR: well, we need to write the exit criteria so that we are credible.
> >
> > JS: We can't just cherry pick implementations to find 2
> > implementations, we have to show that types of tools meet the criteria
> that apply to that tool .
> >
> > JR: Those of you who are not writing test cases, please go through the
> > document and look for the success criteria that are either hard to
> > test, or may not have sufficient implementations.
> >
> > <Jan> We will discuss on Dept 24
> >
> > JR: We will discuss this next week. Look for at-risk success criteria.
> >
> > <Jan> End of the first part of the call
> >
> > <Greg> Provide link to the test location?
> >
> > <Jan> This is the most recent:
> > http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2012/ATAG20tests/ATAG2-
> > 10April2012PublicWD-Tests-rev20120730
> >
> > <Jan> There were some more tests submitted after that point...
> >
> > <Jan> e.g. from http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-
> > au/2012JulSep/0035.html
> >
> > <Jan> Guideline A.3.1: (For the authoring tool user interface) Provide
> > keyboard access to authoring features - Tim Boland
> >
> > <Jan> Guideline A.4.2: (For the authoring tool user interface)
> > Document the user interface including all accessibility features. -
> > Jan Richards
> >
> > GP: A.3.7.1 & 2 - Greg will take them
> >
> > <Jan> Guideline A.3.7: (For the authoring tool user interface) Ensure
> > that previews are at least as accessible as in-market user agents. -
> > Greg Pisocky
> >
> > A.3.6 to Jeanne
> >
> > <Jan> Guideline A.3.6: (For the authoring tool user interface) Manage
> > preference settings. - Jeanne Spellman
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > (MR) JAN RICHARDS
> > PROJECT MANAGER
> > INCLUSIVE DESIGN RESEARCH CENTRE (IDRC) OCAD UNIVERSITY
> >
> > T 416 977 6000 x3957
> > F 416 977 9844
> > E jrichards@ocadu.ca
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Richards, Jan [mailto:jrichards@ocadu.ca]
> > > Sent: September-17-12 1:08 PM
> > > To: w3c-wai-au@w3.org
> > > Subject: AUWG Teleconference on 17 Sept 2012 3:00pm-4:00pm ET
> > > (Today)
> > >
> > > There will be an AUWG teleconference on Monday 17 September 2012 at
> > > 3:00 pm- 4:00 pm ET:
> > > Call: (617) 761-6200 ext. 2894#
> > > Zakim: +1.617.761.6200       (Boston)
> > > IRC: server: irc.w3.org, port: 6665, channel: #au
> > >
> > > If people think they will arrive more than 15 minutes late, please
> > > send me an email beforehand.
> > >
> > > Last Call Drafts
> > > ===========
> > > http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG20/
> > > http://www.w3.org/TR/IMPLEMENTING-ATAG20/
> > >
> > > Agenda
> > > ======
> > > 1. What to do with B.4.1.3 Feature Availability Information
> > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2012JulSep/0020.html
> > >
> > > 2. Other issues from the larger group?
> > >
> > > (then the meeting will pass over to the testing sub-group)
> > >
> > > 3. brief testing approach description (Jan)
> > >
> > > 3. Tests so far:
> > > http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2012/ATAG20tests/ATAG2-
> > > 10April2012PublicWD-Tests-rev20120730
> > >
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Jan
> > >
> > > (MR) JAN RICHARDS
> > > PROJECT MANAGER
> > > INCLUSIVE DESIGN RESEARCH CENTRE (IDRC) OCAD UNIVERSITY
> > >
> > > T 416 977 6000 x3957
> > > F 416 977 9844
> > > E jrichards@ocadu.ca
> > >
> > >
Received on Monday, 17 September 2012 20:20:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 17 September 2012 20:20:37 GMT