RE: WCAG 2.0 automated verification and intended reporting layout

One more question - what's supposed to be the difference between H67, F38 and F39?  The latter two appear to be identical - and H67 appears to be a subset of F38/F39 that only applies to IMG elements (whereas F38/F39 apply to IMG and APPLET elements).

Any reason not to simply define H67 as applying to both IMG and APPLET elements and just drop F38 and F39?  Or better, simply leave APPLET elements out of it - they're very rare these days and I don't believe I've ever seen a purely decorate JAVA applet anyway.

________________________________________
From: Loretta Guarino Reid [lorettaguarino@google.com]
Sent: Friday, 24 October 2008 4:32 PM
To: Dylan Nicholson
Cc: public-comments-wcag20@w3.org
Subject: Re: WCAG 2.0 automated verification and intended reporting layout

The ERT WG home page is http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/ . You can find
additional information  there, including contact information.

Regards,
Loretta

On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 9:27 PM, Dylan Nicholson
<d.nicholson@hisoftware.com> wrote:
> Automated testing tools are often used on sites upwards of a million pages.  Manual human verification of every page is hence basically impossible.  However, manual verification of, say, pages that contain "audio-only presentations" is more realistic - this assumes that there is an automated method of recording pages that use such presentations.  It would be nice if there was standard XHTML markup to identify presentations as audio-only / video-only / etc.
>
> Is there a separate contact address for the ERT WG?
> ________________________________________
> From: Loretta Guarino Reid [lorettaguarino@google.com]
> Sent: Friday, 24 October 2008 1:08 PM
> To: Dylan Nicholson
> Cc: public-comments-wcag20@w3.org
> Subject: Re: WCAG 2.0 automated verification and intended reporting layout
>
> 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
> evaluation.
>
> 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 Monday, 27 October 2008 01:36:37 UTC