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

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

From: Tim van Schie <timvanschie1@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2014 17:47:43 +0100
Message-ID: <CAHY0ejCWeM=ywjtve=EkOwxBwNM3RUn9RYqV7ttvG1LrxN1wEg@mail.gmail.com>
To: akirkpat@adobe.com
Cc: public-comments-wcag20@w3.org
Hi Michael,

Good to hear that my feedback was useful. I'm not working as an
accessibility inspector anymore, but I here are some other things that I
remember to not completely match with the succescriteria (at least, from my
perspective, but I could be wrong of course):

- SC 1.4.1 has F13 as a failure technique, but the SC says: "This success
criterion addresses color perception specifically. Other forms of
perception are covered in Guideline 1.3 including programmatic access to
color and other visual presentation coding.". Since F13 is about text
alternatives (for blind people), should it then be a failure for SC 1.4.1?

- SC 1.4.1 has G183 as a general technique, that seems to introduce
something new to the SC, namely the colour contrast with the surrounding
text. Shouldn't that be in the SC? Or should the contrast with the
surrounding text be seen as redundant (or optional) and are the additional
visual cues (on focus and hover) what really counts to apply to the SC?

- SC 2.1.1 has F42. But something can be made keyboard accessible without
being programmatically determinable right? You could add tabindex and JS to
make it work with a keyboard. Of course it would be a failure for 1.3.1 (if
it looks like a link) and 4.1.2, but I don't see how it has to be failure
for 2.1.1.

I hope it's helpful.

Best regards,

Tim van Schie


2014/1/16 <akirkpat@adobe.com>

>  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 Sunday, 26 January 2014 21:31:09 UTC

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