W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > October to December 2011

Re: Objection to the deletion of F69

From: Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2011 08:54:33 -0800
Message-ID: <CAHu5OWbrhvexy7xCriYCd4byZAp7WvYjaEH_YNGON=i-bU448g@mail.gmail.com>
To: adam.solomon2@gmail.com
Cc: Detlev Fischer <fischer@dias.de>, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Adam, I believe that the first proposed alternative in last week's survey
addressed this, although it left problems for site evaluators if there was
no conformance statement to indicate what technique was used.

On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 8:52 AM, Adam Solomon <adam.solomon2@gmail.com>wrote:

>  I respectfully remind the group that the crux of the problem with F69
> was the test procedure – specifically our inability to come up with a draft
> of that test procedure which made clear that the failure was applicable
> only where it failed all relevant technologies, namely text resize *and* zoom. Will someone be working on such a draft before the meeting? If not,
> we will probably end up at the same impasse we did last time. ****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Loretta Guarino Reid [mailto:lorettaguarino@google.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, November 11, 2011 8:13 PM
> *To:* Detlev Fischer
> *Cc:* w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
> *Subject:* Re: Objection to the deletion of F69****
>
> ** **
>
> ok, let's put this back on the agenda again for next week. Detlev, any
> chance you could join us?****
>
> On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 8:48 AM, Detlev Fischer <fischer@dias.de> wrote:**
> **
>
> Hi WCAG WG,
>
> I learned that after James Nurthen had devised a technique that shows
> failure of content to scale under page zoom, the discussion has now
> concluded that F69 should be simply dropped.
>
> >From an evaluation standpoint, the failures are of critical importance
> since they do not come with the usual disclaimer that "failure to conform
> does not mean that the SC is not met"  - a statement that we find under
> nearly (?) all tests in techniques, making them difficult to use in a
> conclusive evaluation procedure.
>
> So I propose to think twice before deleting failures that provide at least
> *some* measure of assessing conformance to success criteria. I can find no
> argument why the proposed new example for F69
> http://jnurthen.users.sonic.net/resize.html
>
> ..is unsuitable to demonstrate a failure of supporting page zoom.  It
> 'works' in several browsers that I tried it in.
>
> Regards,
> Detlev
>
> Quoting Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org>:****
>
> Minutes of the 10 November 2011 WCAG meeting are posted to
> http://www.w3.org/2011/11/10-wai-wcag-minutes.html and copied below.
>
>
>  Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group Teleconference
>
>
>    10 Nov 2011
>
> See also: IRC log <http://www.w3.org/2011/11/10-wai-wcag-irc>
>
>
>    Attendees
>
> Present
>    Katie_Haritos-Shea, Bruce_Bailey, Michael_Cooper, Adam_Solomon,
>    Andrew_Kirkpatrick, Loretta_Guarino_Reid, Marc_Johlic, jongund,
>    James_Nurthen, Gregg_Vanderheiden
> Regrets
> Chair
>    Loretta_Guarino_Reid
> Scribe
>    AWK
>
>
>    Contents
>
>    * Topics <http://www.w3.org/2011/11/10-wai-wcag-minutes.html#agenda>
>         1. 1. Issue LC-2513: Conflict between alternative options 1-4
>            and F69
>            <http://www.w3.org/2011/11/10-wai-wcag-minutes.html#item01>
>         2. Data table requirements
>            <http://www.w3.org/2011/11/10-wai-wcag-minutes.html#item02>
>    * Summary of Action Items
>      <http://www.w3.org/2011/11/10-wai-wcag-minutes.html#ActionSummary>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> <trackbot> Date: 10 November 2011
>
> <MichaelC> Website Accessibility Evaluation Methodology
> <http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/methodology/>
>
>
>      1. Issue LC-2513: Conflict between alternative options 1-4 and F69
>
> <MichaelC> scribe: AWK
>
> <adam> i am working on my mic - cant hear in the meantime
>
> <scribe> *ACTION:* jamesn to write new technique for 1.4.4 failure for
> CSS related to failure related to zoom. [recorded in
> http://www.w3.org/2011/11/10-wai-wcag-minutes.html#action01]
>
> <trackbot> Created ACTION-166 - Write new technique for 1.4.4 failure
> for CSS related to failure related to zoom. [on James Nurthen - due
> 2011-11-17].
>
> *RESOLUTION: delete F69 and revise response to 2513 to reflect that
> decision.*
>
>
>      Data table requirements
>
> <Loretta> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/20111110misc/results
>
> <Loretta> http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20101014/H51
>
> *RESOLUTION: Discussion of three table questions with Jon G resulted in
> his understanding how the WG interprets WCAG and tables in 1.3.1*
>
>
>    Summary of Action Items
>
> *[NEW]* *ACTION:* jamesn to write new technique for 1.4.4 failure for
> CSS related to failure related to zoom. [recorded in
> http://www.w3.org/2011/11/10-wai-wcag-minutes.html#action01]
>
> [End of minutes]
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl
> <http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/%7Echeckout%7E/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm>
> version 1.136 (CVS log <http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/>)
> $Date: 2011/11/10 23:06:45 $
>
>
> --
>
> Michael Cooper
> Web Accessibility Specialist
> World Wide Web Consortium, Web Accessibility Initiative
> E-mail cooper@w3.org <mailto:cooper@w3.org>
> Information Page <http://www.w3.org/People/cooper/>
>
> ****
>
>
>
>
> --
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> Detlev Fischer PhD
> DIAS GmbH - Daten, Informationssysteme und Analysen im Sozialen
> Geschäftsführung: Thomas Lilienthal, Michael Zapp
>
> Telefon: +49-40-43 18 75-25 <%2B49-40-43%2018%2075-25>
> Mobile: +49-157 7-170 73 84 <%2B49-157%207-170%2073%2084>
> Fax: +49-40-43 18 75-19
> E-Mail: fischer@dias.de
>
> Anschrift: Schulterblatt 36, D-20357 Hamburg
> Amtsgericht Hamburg HRB 58 167
> Geschäftsführer: Thomas Lilienthal, Michael Zapp
> ---------------------------------------------------------------****
>
> ** **
>
Received on Saturday, 12 November 2011 16:55:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 12 November 2011 16:55:25 GMT