Re: Note at end of sufficient techniques for 3.3.2 is ambiguous

On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 9:41 AM, <noreply@w3.org> wrote:

>
> Name: David MacDonald
> Email: david@eramp.com
> Affiliation: WCAG team member
> Document: UW
> Item Number: Understanding Success Criterion 3.3.2
> Part of Item: Sufficient Techniques
> Comment Type: technical
> Summary of Issue: Note at end of sufficient techniques for 3.3.2 is
> ambiguous
> Comment (Including rationale for any proposed change):
> The Bovernment of Canada has pointed out an ambiguous note: read our
> correspondence below
>
> From: Pirthipal.Singh@tbs-sct.gc.ca [mailto:Pirthipal.Singh@tbs-sct.gc.ca]
> Sent: September-14-10 10:19 AM
> To: David@eramp.com
> Subject: Quick Question
>
> Hi David
>
> Hope things are going well.
>
> We have a question – In success criteria 3.3.2 (
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/NOTE-UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20-20081211/minimize-error-cues.html),
> there is an ambiguous note at the end of sufficient techniques which states
>
> “Note: The techniques at the end of the above list should be considered
> "last resort" and only used when the other techniques cannot be applied to
> the page. The earlier techniques are preferred because they increase
> accessibility to a wider user group.”
>
> The use of the terms “last resort” and “techniques at the end of the above
> list” are causing confusion. For example, are techniques 4+5 fine or does
> one follows sufficient techniques from the top (and only use latter ones if
> the earlier ones cannot be met).
>
> Would you be able to clarify?
>
> P.S. My recommendation would be not to put in ambiguous terms like that for
> sufficient techniques. If a sufficient technique is not considered
> sufficient, it should not be in the sufficient techniques.
>
> Pirthipal Singh
> Team Leader - Web Standards Office | Chef d'equipe - Bureau de normes web
> Information Technology Division |  Division de la technologie de
> l'information
> Chief Information Officer Branch | Direction du dirigeant principal de
> l'information
> Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat | Secrétariat du Conseil du Trésor du
> Canada
> Ottawa, Canada K1A 0R5
> Pirthipal.Singh@tbs-sct.gc.ca
> Telephone | Téléphone 613-948-1888 / Facsimile | Télécopieur 613-946-9342/ Teletypewriter | Téléimprimeur
> 613-957-9090
> Government of Canada | Gouvernement du Canada
> Hi Pirth
>
> You are probably right... I actually don’t remember when that got added ...
>
>  I think they are talking about these two techniques in the note:
> •       H65: Using the title attribute to identify form controls when the
> label element cannot be used (HTML)
> •       G167: Using an adjacent button to label the purpose of a field
>
> The Title attribute has flakey support in User agents... It’s not really
> the author’s fault... but JAWS does allow the user to set the Title
> attribute for different settings ... although most blind people don’t know
> that and it’s also not the best behaviour anyway... so that’s why I think
> they added the note but let the techniques stand. For G167, screen readers
> are pretty smart about looking around a field for something that might be a
> label so it would probably read ok, but again it’s not really a programmatic
> association. Giving advice like this is pretty ambiguous.  The note
> telegraphs that the committee was not thinking that the techniques were
> going to become mandatory...
>
> I’ll add your comments, and suggest the techniques be demoted to advisory.
>
> Cheers
> David MacDonald
>
>
>
>
> Proposed Change:
> Change H65 and G167 to advisory techniques for 3.3.2
>
> And review H71 (using fieldset) to consider whether it should be sufficient
> or advisory
>
> ================================
Response from the Working Group
================================

This was meant to apply to techniques
H65: Using the title attribute to identify form controls when the label
element cannot be used (HTML)
G167: Using an adjacent button to label the purpose of a field

We should have named them rather than referring to them in list order.

Note that we encourage the use of additional techniques even though these
techniques are technically sufficient.

We have changed the note to read:
"Note: The techniques H65 and G167 in the above list should be considered
"last resort" and only used when the other techniques cannot be applied to
the page. The earlier techniques are preferred because they increase
accessibility to a wider user group."


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