W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > January to March 2009

RE: 4.1.1 question, not clearly documented

From: Cynthia Shelly <cyns@exchange.microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 23:03:35 +0000
To: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>, "achuter@technosite.es" <achuter@technosite.es>, Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>
CC: "w3c-wai-gl-request@listhub.w3.org" <w3c-wai-gl-request@listhub.w3.org>, Sailesh Panchang <spanchang02@yahoo.com>, "w3c-wai-gl@w3.org" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <E333727E0A1D0C4E8E91C4D0492F07710507F311@df-m14-02.exchange.corp.microsoft.com>
Just to be clear, the reason this fails is because of "elements are nested according to their specifications"?  Or is it because of "elements have complete start and end tags"?  If it's the second, "complete" is not defined as being complete according to any particular specification.  I think it's somewhat ambiguous as to whether <input type="text"> is complete in this case, since there's no reference to the specification.  I could make an argument that end-tag completeness is not dependant on the spec being referenced.

I have a product team asking me for a definitive answer on this by next week, and I'm not sure I see consensus.  If there is consensus on this, can we add either a failure, or a technique that includes an HTML example and an XHTML example?

Loretta, would it be possible to add this to the survey for tomorrow's call?

From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Gregg Vanderheiden
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 7:53 AM
To: achuter@technosite.es
Cc: w3c-wai-gl-request@listhub.w3.org; Sailesh Panchang; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: Re: 4.1.1 question, not clearly documented


On Feb 24, 2009, at 4:03 AM, Alan Chuter wrote:


Looking afresh at the presentation of the Techniques I have to agree that it's not readily apparent that failing them [techniques] is not a failure of the corresponding SCs.




Hmmmmm


we have these instructions at the TOP of the Understanding doc  (See below)
and at the top of the How To Meet doc

but it looks like those don't get seen.....

Do we need something repeated for each SC  (we don't like to do that.. but....)






HOW TO MEET INTRO INCLUDES ==========================

About the Techniques

Note that all techniques are informative<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#informativedef> - you don't have to follow them. The "sufficient techniques" listed below are considered sufficient to meet the success criteria; however, it is not necessary to use these particular techniques. Anyone can submit new techniques<http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/TECHS-SUBMIT/> at any time. If techniques are used other than those listed by the Working Group, then some other method for establishing the technique's ability to meet the success criteria would be needed.



UNDERSTANDING INTRO INCLUDES =========================


Sufficient and Advisory Techniques

Rather than having technology specific techniques in WCAG 2.0, the guidelines and Success Criteria themselves have been written in a technology neutral fashion. In order to provide guidance and examples for meeting the guidelines using specific technologies (for example HTML) the working group has identified sufficient techniques for each Success Criterion that are sufficient to meet that Success Criterion. The list of sufficient techniques is maintained in the "Understanding WCAG 2.0" (and mirrored in How to Meet WCAG 2.0). In this way it is possible to update the list as new techniques are discovered, and as Web Technologies and Assistive Technologies progress.

Note that all techniques are informative<http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-WCAG20-20081211/#informativedef>. The "sufficient techniques" are considered sufficient by the WCAG Working Group to meet the success criteria. However, it is not necessary to use these particular techniques. If techniques are used other than those listed by the Working Group, then some other method for establishing the technique's ability to meet the Success Criteria would be needed

Most Success Criteria have multiple sufficient techniques listed. Any of the listed sufficient techniques can be used to meet the Success Criterion. There may be other techniques which are not documented by the working group that could also meet the Success Criterion. As new sufficient techniques are identified they will be added to the listing.

In addition to the sufficient techniques, there are a number of advisory techniques that can enhance accessibility, but did not qualify as sufficient techniques because they are not sufficient to meet the full requirements of the Success Criteria, they are not testable, and/or because they are good and effective techniques in some circumstances but not effective or helpful in others. These are listed as advisory techniques and are right below the sufficient techniques. Authors are encouraged to use these techniques wherever appropriate to increase accessibility of their Web pages.
Received on Wednesday, 25 February 2009 23:04:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:56 GMT