W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2005

RE: Test files review, #75, 76, 77, 78 79, 27, 128, 129, 183

From: John M Slatin <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 08:41:41 -0500
Message-ID: <6EED8F7006A883459D4818686BCE3B3B7AE1C2@MAIL01.austin.utexas.edu>
To: "Chris Ridpath" <chris.ridpath@utoronto.ca>, "David MacDonald" <befree@magma.ca>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

Chris writes:
<blockquote>
The 2 tests are a bit different. Test 77 asks for a text *transcript* and 
test 80 asks for a text *equivalent*. Is a text transcript the same thing as 
a text equivalent?

> 6) OBJECT must have a text equivalent. 
</blockquote>

It's important that terminology in test files and techniques is consistent with terminology in WCAG 2.0.  WCAG 2.0 does not use the term "text equivalent." Guidelines 1.1 and 1.2 use the term "text alternative."  Techniques and tests should reflect this to avoid creating unintended confusion.

Also, sentences that state that X *must* do or be Y are not testable.  These statements *must* be rewritten as assertions that may be either true or false, e.g., "X *is* Y."

John


"Good design is accessible design." 
John Slatin, Ph.D.
Director, Accessibility Institute
University of Texas at Austin
FAC 248C
1 University Station G9600
Austin, TX 78712
ph 512-495-4288, f 512-495-4524
email jslatin@mail.utexas.edu
web http://www.utexas.edu/research/accessibility/


 



-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Chris Ridpath
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 2:31 am
To: David MacDonald; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: Re: Test files review, #75, 76, 77, 78 79, 27, 128, 129, 183



David,

Thanks for all your hard work on these test cases and your comments on the 
use of the test files. Before addressing your comments I'd like to talk a 
bit about what is required when reviewing the test cases.

It appears that we haven't been giving clear instructions when assigning the 
test cases. The assigned test cases are not complete. They require you to 
complete them and modify any parts that are not right. If you see something 
that is missing or incorrect, please fix it. This includes the test files 
and any text within the test cases. We know there are omissions and 
incorrect text within the assigned test cases. Your job as a reviewer is to 
complete the test case and fix any incorrect text.

All the test cases are based upon the HTML techniques. Please refer to the 
technique associated with the test case to find out the purpose of the test 
case.

Do not assume that the WCAG guideline assigned to the test case is correct. 
It may need to be changed and the reviewers job is to suggest the correct 
guideline.

I'll try to address your comments on the test cases below.

> <section on accessible test files>
> I still have a problem with an inaccessible
> file getting a "passing" grade.
>
None of the test files have been given a passing grade according to the WCAG 
or any other accessibility standard. They are just meant to show the 
presence or absence of a particular accessibility problem. As you've seen, a 
test file can be devoid of a particular problem and still have accessibility 
barriers.

There is plenty of room to add more test files that provide good examples 
and meet an accessibility standard. Unfortunately, there is a large number 
of test cases and given my limited time I'm unable to create extra files. 
Any help in creating extra test files would be much appreciated.

> 1) Document must be usable when OBJECTs are disabled. 
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/tests/test75.html
>
> This test is referring to Guideline 2.1-all functionality via a
> keyboard...
>
This test is based upon the technique 12.4 "text alternatives for object" 
and WCAG guideline 2.1 is not a good place to put it. Could you take a look 
at the technique and see if this is a valid test?

> 2) OBJECT user interface must be accessible. 
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/tests/test76.html
>
> 76-1 I think there is a wrong use or "codebase" see above. 76-2 The 
> pass condition is a file that has no object tag.
>
Could you improve the test files? Is this a valid test?

> 3) OBJECT link to multimedia file must have text transcript. 
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/tests/test77.html
>
> I think the test file 77-2 is confusing because it gives an example of 
> a file that will pass because there is no object tag. Since the test 
> is testing for a text equivalent on an object, I think it should have 
> a test using a text equivalent for a video file in the object tag 
> rather than just showing some code that has no object tag and 
> therefore passes.
>
> Apart from that, I would reject the entire test because it seems 
> redundant to Test 80, in 77 it says to look for a "type" attribute and 
> if it is a video then look for a text equivalent...in test 80 it says 
> look for a text equivalent (no matter what kind of object it is) so 
> doesn't that mean that text alternatives for video are included in 80?
>
The 2 tests are a bit different. Test 77 asks for a text *transcript* and 
test 80 asks for a text *equivalent*. Is a text transcript the same thing as 
a text equivalent?

> 6) OBJECT must have a text equivalent. 
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/tests/test80.html
>
> 80-1 to 80-4 files have classid="some url" but to my understanding a
> classid
> is only used by windows to reference a registry type of key, e.g., 
> <object
> classid="clsid:22D6F312-B0F6-11D0-94AB-0080C74C7E95"> not a URL.
>
> 80-3 is supposed to be an example of a pass condition, but it offers 
> an image as the alternative to a .py file with *no* alt text. To me 
> that is a fail condition.
>
Could you suggest a new test file?

>
> 7) Text equivalents for OBJECT should be updated if OBJECT changes. 
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/tests/test127.html
>
> Test 127-1 has the alt text inside the object tag.
> Test 127-2 is an example of a passing test file that is inaccessible. 
> The test passes because there is no text equivalent.
>
Could you suggest new test files? Is this test valid?

>
> 8) Document must be usable when OBJECTs are disabled. 
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/tests/test128.html
>
> I don't understand why 128-2 is a pass. When the object is removed 
> there
> is
> no content. I do not recommend this test
>
Should a document be usable when OBJECT's are disabled? Is this test valid? 
Please suggest changes for the test files if they are incorrect.

>
> 9) OBJECT user interface must be accessible. 
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/tests/test129.html
>
> There is no way to know if 129-2 is a passing test because it has not 
> been accessed with a keyboard and the test calls us to test with a 
> keyboard.
>
Please suggest a new test file.

> 10) Use the EMBED element within the OBJECT element. 
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/tests/test183.html
>
> The Embed element is not a W3C spec.
>
Yes, although it does seem to be helpful. Should we recomment the use of 
EMBED?

Cheers,
Chris
Received on Wednesday, 13 April 2005 13:41:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 23:39:36 UTC