W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2006

RE: About tests 37-41 (headers) *wkey

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 13:12:54 -0500
To: "'Chris Ridpath'" <chris.ridpath@utoronto.ca>, "'Johannes Koch'" <koch@w3development.de>, "'WCAG'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <00d701c66e14$09d19810$ee8cfea9@NC6000BAK>

Hi Chris.

I think you are missing the way conformance and techniques work. 

Your email again uses failure of a technique to imply failure of a success
criterion.    Failure of a technique NEVER implies failure of a success
criterion.  Only failure of the technique.   There may be other techniques
for meeting the Success criterion.   

So if something fails a technique - you cannot say anything about
conformance to WCAG 2.0 beyond 
- it doesn't conform using this particular technique but it may conform
using another
- if this is the only technique that is listed as sufficient then - you can
say that it doesn't meet the only currently listed sufficient technique for
a success criterion but it might conform another way. 

If something is done that is listed as a COMMON FAILURE -- then you can say,
"the working group lists this as a common failure for SC x.y.z of WCAG 2.0".




Now for this specific item, the success criterion does not require validity.
So whether it is valid code or not does not cause failure of the success
criterion.   The reason why it is invalid might -- depending on whether that
reason does violate a success criterion.  



Gregg

 -- ------------------------------ 
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 
Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center 
University of Wisconsin-Madison 
The Player for my DSS sound file is at http://tinyurl.com/dho6b 

-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf
Of Chris Ridpath
Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2006 12:52 PM
To: Gregg Vanderheiden; 'Johannes Koch'; 'WCAG'
Subject: Re: About tests 37-41 (headers) *wkey


My use of the word "forbid" may have muddied the question. I'll try again...

I think the intent of Vicente's question is "Does a document that contains
nested tables conform to the WCAG2?". This is what authors will be asking
all the time - does my content conform?

My interpretation is that no, it does not conform.

The reason is that nested tables are not valid code and fail technique G134
so they do not meet SC4.1.1.

Is that the way you see it?

Chris


----- Original Message -----
From: "Gregg Vanderheiden" <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
To: "'Chris Ridpath'" <chris.ridpath@utoronto.ca>; "'Johannes Koch'" 
<koch@w3development.de>; "'WCAG'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2006 12:29 PM
Subject: RE: About tests 37-41 (headers) *wkey


> Hmmm
>
> Do you mean does WCAG 2.0 forbid this?
>
> Or do you mean "is there and accessibility rule somewhere".
>
> If you mean does WCAG 2.0 forbid this you need to look ONLY at the success
> criteria.  They are the only thing that forbids.
>
> If you want to know if the working group documented something specific 
> that
> the success criteria forbid - look at the Common Failures.
>
> Techniques only show how to do things. Never what is or isn't allowed.
>
> Does that help clarify?
>
>
>
> Gregg
>
Received on Tuesday, 2 May 2006 18:13:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:46 GMT