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

AW: Further example for F69

From: Kerstin Probiesch <k.probiesch@googlemail.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 11:35:23 +0100
To: <adam.solomon2@gmail.com>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Cc: "Loretta Guarino Reid" <lorettaguarino@google.com>
Message-ID: <4ec391b0.1216df0a.413f.1b85@mx.google.com>
Hi Adam, Loretta, all,

thanks @Adam for this important overview of the history of F69. 

>From my perspective one of the major challenges of the WCAG2 is: not mixing
normative and non-normative documents and having in mind that not the
non-normative techniques but the normative SCs is the real important
document. Therefore I think that no having an Fx is not "nice", but
acceptable. I fear that as long as there are examples in F69 which fails not
only the page zoom but also the text resize it could easily see as
'legitimation' for testing the text resize - depending upon the
interpretation of the SC in combination with F69. 

The clarification of page zoom as valid way of satisfying this SC, was very
important not only for web developers and evaluators but also for more
harmonization. This clarification should from my perspective lead either in
an F69 where _just the page_ zoom fails and the text resize _works_ or in
the final dropping of F69. Otherwise the text resize might come in through
the back door as must have technique for satisfying the SC. I agree that
techniques and examples are important, but: if different interpretations of
satisfying an SC are possible because of one technique nothing is won. It
will not only lead to different test results (depending on the testing
organization) but 'encourage' fragmentation instead of harmonization. 

Therefore I have reservations to adoptions of F69 as long as examples for
failing page zoom _and_ text resize are included and would like to join the



> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Adam Solomon [mailto:adam.solomon2@gmail.com]
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 15. November 2011 21:15
> An: 'Detlev Fischer'; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
> Betreff: RE: Further example for F69
> I would like to explain my perspective on the issue of F69, and why the
> group had tentatively decided to table this failure, in the hopes of
> avoiding an unnecessarily long discussion of this issue at the next
> meeting.
> Originally, the examples from F69 violated the success criterion only
> when
> using text resize, but when using zoom, no text or content was lost.
> Since
> zoom is a valid way of satisfying the success criterion, these examples
> were
> essentially obsolete for this failure. The group then tried to rewrite
> F69
> to indicate that the examples would only fail when text resize was
> being
> used as the technique for this success criterion, but that with zoom
> the
> failure would not apply. At that point we realized that the test
> procedure
> was also misleading. It states that if one resizes the text and content
> is
> lost, there is a failure. In fact, one might test with text resize and
> find
> that content is lost, and conclude that there is a failure, when, in
> fact,
> there is no failure at all, since zoom can be used to resize without
> loss of
> content. The group tried a few stabs at rewriting the test procedure,
> but
> was unable to reach a consensus on any of the drafts that were
> suggested.
> All of them seemed to leave room for confusion.
> So, there are really two issues at hand:
> 1. Getting examples of content loss which fail in zoom, as well as text
> resize. Thanks to James, Kathy, and now Detlev, we have these examples.
> 2. Rewriting the test procedure in a way which will leave no doubt that
> there is no failure when zoom is used without content loss. This is the
> greatest of the two problems.
> Though most of the group was wary of throwing away valuable examples,
> we
> decided that the suggested rewrites for the F69 test procedure were not
> clear enough.
> It is my feeling that unless we make it crystal clear in the test
> procedure
> that zoom can satisfy the SC, then we do need to delete F69. This is a
> technology specific failure, and there is a precedent for such a
> deletion:
> (to the best of my recollection) a similar failure was deleted - I
> believe
> it was F68 (though I didn't find the minutes for this), because it was
> technology specific, namely ARIA provided a way of associating a label
> with
> a control field.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Detlev Fischer [mailto:fischer@dias.de]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2011 1:22 PM
> To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
> Subject: Further example for F69
> I tried my hand at a further example for failure F69 that works in both
> text zoom and page zoom, this time involving an absolutely positioned
> header box.
> http://www.oturn.net/wcag/failure-1.4.4.html
> Probably needs further work but seems to demonstrate failure in both IE
> and Firefox, also in Opera and Chrome.
> Talk to you an Thursday,
> Detlev
> Am 14.11.2011 23:17, schrieb Loretta Guarino Reid:
> > We'll reopen the discussion around F69. We will take advantage of
> > Detlev's presence to review his latest failure proposals. Please send
> > any other items we should take up on Thursday.
> --
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> Detlev Fischer PhD
> DIAS GmbH - Daten, Informationssysteme und Analysen im Sozialen
> Geschäftsführung: Thomas Lilienthal, Michael Zapp
> Telefon: +49-40-43 18 75-25
> Mobile: +49-157 7-170 73 84
> 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 Wednesday, 16 November 2011 10:35:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:34:08 UTC