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

thoughts re: WCAG2.0 Techniques/Tests (my action item)?

From: Tim Boland <frederick.boland@nist.gov>
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 09:51:54 -0400
Message-Id: <>
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org

Per my "action item" from July 6 WCAG TTF teleconference, here are some 

(1) Perhaps it should be a goal that each technique should have a documented
test assertion, derived from the technique's task, test files, and examples;
this assertion would attempt to objectively define (measure) what it means for
  a technique to be "successful" relative to the "related" WCAG2.0 success
  criterion.  For more information on test assertions, please consult QA SpecGL
Good Practice 12 [1] .

(2) Perhaps it should be a goal that each technique should have documented
(possibly as part of the test assertion or as an extension to it) exactly
and specifically how such "success" as measured in (1) previous would 
the relevant WCAG2.0 success criterion.  For example, for those techniques 
to WCAG2.0 G1.3L1SC1 [2], language could be included as "Structures within 
the content are
programmatically determined because...and then insert language "derived from"
test assertion" of "related" technique(s)?

(3) Perhaps there should be a more "formal" process by which techniques are
evaluated and approved for promoting WCAG2.0 conformance, to ensure not only
that the requirements specified in Requirements for WCAG2.0 Checklists and 
Techniques [3] are met, but also that conditions (1) and (2) mentioned 
previously are
satisfied (since the techniques will actually be "tested" to support 
WCAG2.0 conformance).
Perhaps any techniques that do not meet the previously-mentioned 
requirements should
be placed in a different category from those that do?

(4) Perhaps there should be consideration as to whether appropriate 
"metadata" (with definitions
for all applicable terms) could be used in managing baseline information 
related to techniques
(to attempt to manage the "complexity" related to baseline description?).
A proposed QA Wiki test case metadata set of
terms [4] might serve as illustration for this approach (since baseline is 
related to techniques which is related to testing?); perhaps some of these
  terms are even applicable to baseline management as well.  I think there 
may need to be a
consistent methodology for managing the "complexity" of baseline 
information in techniques.

(5) Testing of accessibility issues implemented in a technology may have 
aspects than testing the basic features of the referenced technology 
itself, and so I
think these aspects may need to be distinguished in "testing" the 
techniques.  For more
information on testing per this point, please consult QA Test FAQ [5]  and 
the QA Wiki topics on "Building a Test Suite [6].

Thanks and best wishes
Tim Boland NIST

PS - I've started work on some test files for CSS techniques, and this 
work, along with
the discussions on scripting techniques at the previous TTF, has stimulated 
thoughts on the previously-mentioned

[1]: http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/PR-qaframe-spec-20050629/#write-assertion-gp
[2]: http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#content-structure-separation
[3]: http://www.w3.org/TR/wcag2-tech-req/
[4]: http://esw.w3.org/topic/TestCaseMetadata
[5]: http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2005/01/test-faq
[6]: http://esw.w3.org/topic/QA
Received on Tuesday, 12 July 2005 13:54:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:55 UTC