- From: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2009 23:56:37 +0200
- To: BAD TF <public-wai-eo-badtf@w3.org>
FYI, another opinion to consider. Best, Shadi -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: Success criteria not applicable Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2009 09:39:19 -0500 From: Shawn Henry <shawn@w3.org> To: EOWG <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>, Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org> CC: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>, WCAG WG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org> References: <4AC99E6F.3050303@technosite.es> <4ACA00FD.7050709@w3.org> <4ACB00C4.9030101@technosite.es> <E8BB1C0A-5DE2-4D9B-AD55-58C56403A763@trace.wisc.edu> My comments are in reference to the Before-After Demo (BAD) Evaluation Reports, e.g., [Draft] http://www.w3.org/WAI/demos/bad/draft/2009/report/before/home.html I strongly prefer *not* using "pass" and "fail". I used to use "Yes" and "No" - as in, "yes, this success criteria is met/satisfied/passed/conformed to in this page", or "no, it is not" I do think there is some value in indicating whether the SC is related tothe content, versus if there is no content related to the SC. For example, if there is no audio or video in the content, it seems there is some value in the report indicating that, rather than just using the same indicator for when there is relevant content. (I think we should consider this only at the SC level. At the Guideline summary level, I think we provide the simple "X/X" to show how many SC were met/satisfied/etc.) ...although this is more complicated an issue if you include the AAA SC. I think EOWG needs to discuss that. ~Shawn Gregg Vanderheiden wrote: > The term "not applicable" should not be used. > > The WCAG conformance such that you satisfy (or 'pass') a provision if > you have no content that invokes it. So if you have no video content - > you satisfy all the video provisions. > > The 'Not applicable' label is not needed and is dangerous to use because > it is so often misused. > > instead of Pass and Fail perhaps the terms *Met* or *Satisfied* > and *Fail* are better > > > /Gregg/ > ----------------------- > Gregg Vanderheiden Ph.D. > Director Trace R&D Center > Professor Industrial & Systems Engineering > and Biomedical Engineering > University of Wisconsin-Madison > > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 6, 2009, at 3:33 AM, Alan Chuter wrote: > >> Shawn Henry wrote: >> > Here's the text I referred to in the EOWG teleconference, >> I had to leave early so I missed that discussion but I have read the >> minutes. >> >> I just think that it would be useful to provide guidance on what is >> meant by "not applicable". "No content" would be useful as an >> explanation somewhere in the document. >> >> It is confusing, I think, to mark a guideline as not applicable >> because the dependant success criteria are not applicable. For example >> 2.3 Seizures is marked as N/A. Surely it is applicable, even if there >> is no flashing content. The designers have avoided flashing content, >> so they have complied with the SC, so it is not logical to say that it >> doesn't apply. Otherwise there are only two outcomes, Fail or N/A, so >> you can't pass. >> >> My main concern is that there should be some clarification, but it >> would be more appropriate in WCAG than in the BAD report. I'm more >> concerned that it is something that is missing from the WCAG >> techniques than from this report. >> >> Alan >> >> >> Shawn Henry escribió: >>> Here's the text I referred to in the EOWG teleconference, from >>> Understanding WCAG 2.0: "Conformance to a standard means that you >>> meet or satisfy the 'requirements' of the standard. In WCAG 2.0 the >>> 'requirements' are the Success Criteria. To conform to WCAG 2.0, you >>> need to satisfy the Success Criteria , that is, there is no content >>> which violates the Success Criteria.. >>> Note: This means that if there is no content to which a success >>> criterion applies, the success criterion is satisfied." >>> - >>> http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/conformance.html#uc-conformance-whatis-head >>> For the BAD reports, >>> One could suggest that "no content" would be a better marker to match >>> this wording. >>> One could argue that "not applicable" is better because it is more >>> common. >>> (I, for one, don't feel strongly either way.) >>> Alan, are you suggesting something more specific? >>> ~Shawn >>> Alan Chuter wrote: >>>> In the evaluation report of the Before-and-After Demo many of the >>>> success criteria are marked as "N/A" (not applicable). In my >>>> experience this is a cause of confusion. Accessibility evaluation >>>> reports may flag a success criterion or checkpoint as not applicable >>>> when: >>>> >>>> * The construct or element is not supported by the technology used. >>>> * The specific element concerned does not appear in the content. >>>> * The problem does not arise (like colour difference in black and >>>> white content, or that there is no need to divide content into >>>> sections when it is brief). >>>> >>>> The UWEM methodology [1] tries to define the applicability using >>>> XPath expressions where possible, restricting it to specific markup >>>> elements and attributes or CSS selectors. WCAG 2.0 is much broader, >>>> defining it at the level of the technology used, such as "HTML and >>>> XHTML." >>>> >>>> It might be useful guidance to make this explicit in the BAD >>>> reports, but even more, the WCAG WG could give its opinion to make >>>> clear when a success criterion can be flagged as "not applicable" in >>>> a conformance report. This would be at a global level, not for each >>>> technique (for now at least). >>>> >>>> regards, >>>> >>>> Alan >>>> >>>> >>>> [1] http://www.wabcluster.org/uwem1_2/ >>>> [2] http://www.w3.org/WAI/demos/bad/draft/2009/report/before/home.html >>>> >> >> >> -- >> Alan Chuter >> Departamento de Usabilidad y Accesibilidad >> Consultor >> Technosite - Grupo Fundosa >> Fundación ONCE >> Tfno.: 91 121 03 30 >> Fax: 91 375 70 51 >> achuter@technosite.es <mailto:achuter@technosite.es> >> http://www.technosite.es >> >> > -- Shadi Abou-Zahra - http://www.w3.org/People/shadi/ | WAI International Program Office Activity Lead | W3C Evaluation & Repair Tools Working Group Chair |
Received on Tuesday, 6 October 2009 21:57:06 UTC