W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-comments-wcag20@w3.org > January 2014

Re: Techniques should be scoped by Succescriterium ( LC-2860)

From: <akirkpat@adobe.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 20:57:37 +0000
Message-Id: <E1W3u0P-0008Rc-ID@jessica.w3.org>
To: timvanschie1@gmail.com
Cc: public-comments-wcag20@w3.org
 Dear timvanschie1@gmail.com,

The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group has reviewed the
comments you sent [1] on the Last Call Working Draft [2] of the Techniques
for WCAG 2.0 published on 5 Sep 2013. Thank you for having taken the time
to review the document and to send us comments!

The Working Group's response to your comment is included below.

Please review it carefully and let us know by email at
public-comments-wcag20@w3.org if you agree with it or not before 21 January
2014. In case of disagreement, you are requested to provide a specific
solution for or a path to a consensus with the Working Group. If such a
consensus cannot be achieved, you will be given the opportunity to raise a
formal objection which will then be reviewed by the Director during the
transition of this document to the next stage in the W3C Recommendation
Track.

Thanks,

For the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group,
Michael Cooper
W3C Staff Contact

 1. http://www.w3.org/mid/E1VYYYE-00022V-Iv@stuart.w3.org
 2. http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20130905/


=====

Your comment on the document as a whole:
> I think it should be made more clear that techniques are scope by a
> Succescriterium. So a technique only applies to those situations that a
> Succescriterium speaks about and no more. This is important for both
> sufficient as well as failure techniques.
> 
> E.g. F62 is a failure technique for SC 1.3.1 and 4.1.1. BUT step 2 of
> the test does not lead to a failure of 4.1.1, only step 1 does. Still
> the technique says either one of those steps lead to a failure for 1.3.1
> AND 4.1.1.
> 
> That's not correct, but could be resolved by stating clearly in the
> document 'Understanding Techniques for WCAG Success Criteria' that the
> techniques are scoped by a Succescriterium. Then step 2 of the test will
> never be tested for 4.1.1, since that Succescriterium doesn't mention
> referencing to non-existing ID's (only the usage of unique ID's).
> 
> (There are more failure techniques like this.)
> 
> This would solve unclearness in relation to the fact that some
> techniques try to solve more problems than actually minimally required
> by a Succescriterium. Ofcourse this is good from the perspective of the
> webdeveloper who has to build as accessible as possible, but from the
> perspective of website inspectors it has to be clear what is minimally
> required. A clear statement that the techniques only apply within the
> scope of a Succescriterium will help avoiding confusion about this.
> 
> Please let me know if there are any questions. After november 6th you
> can only contact me by e-mailing to timvanschie1@gmail.com. Until then,
> you can use t.vanschie@accessibility.nl.
> 
> Proposed Change:
> Clearly stating that the techniques are scoped by a Succescriterium (in
> the document 'Understanding Techniques for WCAG Success Criteria'). So
> techniques only apply to those situations that a Succescriterium is
> about.


Working Group Resolution (LC-2860):
Thank you for your comment. We do strive for accuracy in mapping sufficient
techniques and failures to the correct success criteria and to not
over-reach.  We are very interested in any specific examples that you have
where you feel we fall short of this goal.

In your message you refer specifically to a concern about F62 and indicate
that step #2 in the procedure ("Check that elements or attributes that
refer to unique identifiers inside the same document have a corresponding
id value.") does not result in a failure of 4.1.1 as indicated in the
failure document (http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-TECHS/F62.html).  The working
group agrees that you are correct in your comment - the failure will be
updated to remove the third bullet point under example 1 ("a DAISY
document...") and step #2 of the procedure will be removed.

----
Received on Thursday, 16 January 2014 20:57:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:11:17 UTC