W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-eo@w3.org > October to December 2009

Re: Success criteria not applicable

From: William Loughborough <wloughborough@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2009 03:04:49 -0700
Message-ID: <1e3451610910060304u82872d6v6b91e03145447929@mail.gmail.com>
To: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Cc: EOWG <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>, WCAG WG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
+1 I guess.

Since it is clear that it can be read to imply that the success
criterion does not apply in some general sense, rather than that it
simply doesn't come into play in this particular example makes it
necessary to avoid the term.

"Applicable" is overloaded - it can even mean "no longer applicable".

Love.

On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 2:14 AM, Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu> wrote:
> The term "not applicable" should not be used.
> The WCAG conformance such that you satisfy (or 'pass')  a provision if you
> have no content that invokes it.   So if you have no video content - you
> satisfy all the video provisions.
> The 'Not applicable' label is not needed and is dangerous to use because it
> is so often misused.
> instead of Pass and Fail   perhaps the terms    Met or Satisfied   and
>  Fail   are better
>
> Gregg
> -----------------------
> Gregg Vanderheiden Ph.D.
> Director Trace R&D Center
> Professor Industrial & Systems Engineering
> and Biomedical Engineering
> University of Wisconsin-Madison
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Oct 6, 2009, at 3:33 AM, Alan Chuter wrote:
>
> Shawn Henry wrote:
>> Here's the text I referred to in the EOWG teleconference,
> I had to leave early so I missed that discussion but I have read the
> minutes.
>
> I just think that it would be useful to provide guidance on what is meant by
> "not applicable". "No content" would be useful as an explanation somewhere
> in the document.
>
> It is confusing, I think, to mark a guideline as not applicable because the
> dependant success criteria are not applicable. For example 2.3 Seizures is
> marked as N/A. Surely it is applicable, even if there is no flashing
> content. The designers have avoided flashing content, so they have complied
> with the SC, so it is not logical to say that it doesn't apply. Otherwise
> there are only two outcomes, Fail or N/A, so you can't pass.
>
> My main concern is that there should be some clarification, but it would be
> more appropriate in WCAG than in the BAD report. I'm more concerned that it
> is something that is missing from the WCAG techniques than from this report.
>
> Alan
>
>
> Shawn Henry escribió:
>
> Here's the text I referred to in the EOWG teleconference, from Understanding
> WCAG 2.0: "Conformance to a standard means that you meet or satisfy the
> 'requirements' of the standard. In WCAG 2.0 the 'requirements' are the
> Success Criteria. To conform to WCAG 2.0, you need to satisfy the Success
> Criteria , that is, there is no content which violates the Success
> Criteria..
>
> Note: This means that if there is no content to which a success criterion
> applies, the success criterion is satisfied."
>
> -
> http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/conformance.html#uc-conformance-whatis-head
> For the BAD reports,
>
> One could suggest that "no content" would be a better marker to match this
> wording.
>
> One could argue that "not applicable" is better because it is more common.
>
> (I, for one, don't feel strongly either way.)
>
> Alan, are you suggesting something more specific?
>
> ~Shawn
>
> Alan Chuter wrote:
>
> In the evaluation report of the Before-and-After Demo many of the success
> criteria are marked as "N/A" (not applicable). In my experience this is a
> cause of confusion. Accessibility evaluation reports may flag a success
> criterion or checkpoint as not applicable when:
>
> * The construct or element is not supported by the technology used.
>
> * The specific element concerned does not appear in the content.
>
> * The problem does not arise (like colour difference in black and white
> content, or that there is no need to divide content into sections when it is
> brief).
>
> The UWEM methodology [1] tries to define the applicability using XPath
> expressions where possible, restricting it to specific markup elements and
> attributes or CSS selectors. WCAG 2.0 is much broader, defining it at the
> level of the technology used, such as "HTML and XHTML."
>
> It might be useful guidance to make this explicit in the BAD reports, but
> even more, the WCAG WG could give its opinion to make clear when a success
> criterion can be flagged as "not applicable" in a conformance report. This
> would be at a global level, not for each technique (for now at least).
>
> regards,
>
> Alan
>
>
> [1] http://www.wabcluster.org/uwem1_2/
>
> [2] http://www.w3.org/WAI/demos/bad/draft/2009/report/before/home.html
>
>
>
> --
> Alan Chuter
> Departamento de Usabilidad y Accesibilidad
> Consultor
> Technosite - Grupo Fundosa
> Fundación ONCE
> Tfno.: 91 121 03 30
> Fax: 91 375 70 51
> achuter@technosite.es
> http://www.technosite.es
>
>
>
>



-- 
http://www.boobam.org/webgeezermild.htm
Received on Tuesday, 6 October 2009 10:05:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 10:33:56 GMT