W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-comments-wcag20@w3.org > October 2008

Re: WCAG 2.0 automated verification and intended reporting layout

From: Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 19:08:48 -0700
Message-ID: <824e742c0810231908h23f69dd8u3667c4ae8697547c@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Dylan Nicholson" <d.nicholson@hisoftware.com>
Cc: "public-comments-wcag20@w3.org" <public-comments-wcag20@w3.org>

On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 8:17 PM, Dylan Nicholson
<d.nicholson@hisoftware.com> wrote:
> Hello,
> Has anyone thought been given to the intended reporting layout for tools
> that automatically verify websites for WCAG 2.0 compliance?  As a developer,
> the logical "testing unit" would seem to be a "technique", while the logical
> grouping is a "success criterion".  But many techniques are shared across
> multiple criterion, so it seems that "technique" results would necessarily
> be shown more than once, e.g..:
> Success Criteria 1.1.1
>    H36 - passed
>    H2 - passed
>    H37 - passed
>    ...
> Success Criteria 2.4.4
>    ...
>    H2 - passed
>    ...
> Success Criteria 2.4.9
>    ...
>    H2 - passed
> Further, would a comprehensive report be expected to include the "G"
> techniques, which generally can't be fully automated, but could be listed as
> advice to the user as to how to check the page, potentially automatically
> filtering out which pages they are relevant to (e.g., no point showing G94
> if a page has no non-text content)?
> Thanks,
> Dylan
Response from the Working Group
By Success Criterion is how we grouped them in HOW TO MEET WCAG2 and
we think this is how a tool  would too.

Specific reporting formats is a differentiating feature between
evaluation tools. There are many ways to present the information to
the user, some of which are more appropriate for particular contexts
than others. It is beyond the scope of the WCAG WG to make
recommendations about this aspect of the evaluation tool's user
interface and functionality.

With regard to the General techniques (and many of the technology
specific techniques) it is true that many cannot be automatically
tested.  As a result they would need human testing.  Any tool should
both REQUIRE that the human test be conducted and PROVIDE a means to
record the result.  Further - no tool should pass a page unless the
human testing was complete.

Requirements that need human testing are just as required as those
that can be automated.  Because techniques and failures are not
normative, they should not be considered as advice but rather
requirements that must be tested for using human testers, and equal to
those requirements that can be automatically tested.

The Evaluation and Repair Tools Working Group (ERT WG) is working on a
standardized vocabulary to express test results: Evaluation and Report
Language (EARL; http://www.w3.org/TR/EARL10-Schema/). This vocabulary
can express results both from automated testing and from human

Loretta Guarino Reid, WCAG WG Co-Chair
Gregg Vanderheiden, WCAG WG Co-Chair
Michael Cooper, WCAG WG Staff Contact

On behalf of the WCAG Working Group
Received on Friday, 24 October 2008 02:09:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:14:50 UTC