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

Re: 4.1.1 question, not clearly documented

From: Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 16:41:37 -0800
Message-ID: <824e742c0902251641p5044f54bw62ba91ec4294aab@mail.gmail.com>
To: Cynthia Shelly <cyns@exchange.microsoft.com>
Cc: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>, "achuter@technosite.es" <achuter@technosite.es>, "w3c-wai-gl-request@listhub.w3.org" <w3c-wai-gl-request@frink.w3.org>, Sailesh Panchang <spanchang02@yahoo.com>, "w3c-wai-gl@w3.org" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
I don't like adding questions after people have already answered, but
I just added this one.

Loretta

On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 3:03 PM, Cynthia Shelly
<cyns@exchange.microsoft.com> wrote:
> 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 - 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 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. 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 Thursday, 26 February 2009 00:42:16 GMT

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