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

Re: Success criteria not applicable

From: Michael Stenitzer <stenitzer@wienfluss.net>
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2009 17:48:17 +0200
Message-ID: <4ACA1541.9020205@wienfluss.net>
To: Shawn Henry <shawn@w3.org>
CC: achuter@technosite.es, EOWG <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>, WCAG WG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
i would prefer something more specific which tells the user "not 
applicable because no content violates the Success criteria". at least 
in a note under the table. in the table you could use a short version.

regards, michael

Shawn Henry wrote:
> Here's the text I referred to in the EOWG teleconference, from 
> Understanding WCAG 2.0: "Conformance to a standard means that you meet 
> or satisfy the 'requirements' of the standard. In WCAG 2.0 the 
> 'requirements' are the Success Criteria. To conform to WCAG 2.0, you 
> need to satisfy the Success Criteria , that is, there is no content 
> which violates the Success Criteria..
> Note: This means that if there is no content to which a success 
> criterion applies, the success criterion is satisfied."
> 
> - 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/conformance.html#uc-conformance-whatis-head 
> 
> 
> For the BAD reports,
> One could suggest that "no content" would be a better marker to match 
> this wording.
> One could argue that "not applicable" is better because it is more common.
> (I, for one, don't feel strongly either way.)
> 
> Alan, are you suggesting something more specific?
> 
> ~Shawn
> 
> Alan Chuter wrote:
>> In the evaluation report of the Before-and-After Demo many of the 
>> success criteria are marked as "N/A" (not applicable). In my 
>> experience this is a cause of confusion. Accessibility evaluation 
>> reports may flag a success criterion or checkpoint as not applicable 
>> when:
>>
>> * The construct or element is not supported by the technology used.
>> * The specific element concerned does not appear in the content.
>> * The problem does not arise (like colour difference in black and 
>> white content, or that there is no need to divide content into 
>> sections when it is brief).
>>
>> The UWEM methodology [1] tries to define the applicability using XPath 
>> expressions where possible, restricting it to specific markup elements 
>> and attributes or CSS selectors. WCAG 2.0 is much broader, defining it 
>> at the level of the technology used, such as "HTML and XHTML."
>>
>> It might be useful guidance to make this explicit in the BAD reports, 
>> but even more, the WCAG WG could give its opinion to make clear when a 
>> success criterion can be flagged as "not applicable" in a conformance 
>> report. This would be at a global level, not for each technique (for 
>> now at least).
>>
>> regards,
>>
>> Alan
>>
>>
>> [1] http://www.wabcluster.org/uwem1_2/
>> [2] http://www.w3.org/WAI/demos/bad/draft/2009/report/before/home.html
>>
> 

-- 
Michael Stenitzer     | WIENFLUSS information.design.solutions KG
t: +43 (650) 9358770  | proschkogasse 1/5 | 1060 wien
f: +43 (1) 23680199   | www.wienfluss.net
Received on Monday, 5 October 2009 15:48:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:57 GMT