- From: Peter Korn <peter.korn@oracle.com>
- Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2012 09:46:03 -0700
- To: "Velleman, Eric" <evelleman@bartimeus.nl>
- CC: "public-wai-evaltf@w3.org" <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <4F7DCC4B.7030909@oracle.com>
Eric, As a start, it might be worth noting in introductory text the range of things being covered by this methodology. In step 3 on selecting a representative sample, we might again note that for complex web sites & for large web applications, there may "Exemplar functions" of a web app which should definitely included, as distinct from "rarely used functions" - some of which should be perhaps be included anyway as part of the sampling process (to not ignore them entirely). By the way, I thought of what might be a better example to use: a configuration page/dialog for setting per-instance-overridable defaults (e.g. whether the default currency is expressed in Dollars vs. Euros vs. Yen, which can be expressly set each time by the user when they enter the currency in the spreadsheet web-app). If that config page/dialog has an accessibility error (e.g. an unlabeled combo-box), but the per-instance setting has no error (e.g. the "set currency for this field" config page/dialog) - then... there is a good argument to be made that the importance of the accessibility of the default configuration setting isn't so great. Ummm.... this raises another question... In Section 508 among other places we have a notion that all functionality must be accessible, not necessarily all ways of achieving all functionality. The example I made in the paragraph above also connects to this question. It would be a clear WCAG conformance failure if one part of a page failed one of the checkpoints. BUT... what about the situation in which the failed part of the page was fully duplicated elsewhere. This is a contrived edge-case for a single web page, but not at all unusual for a complex web site or web application (after all, we already have the notion of multiple-ways in WCAG). Is there any conformance distinction to be made between a feature/aspect failure when it is the sole way of doing something vs. when it is one of multiple ways and the other ways are accessible? Regards, Peter On 4/5/2012 8:45 AM, Velleman, Eric wrote: > Dear all, > > What shall we say about auditing complex applications that are very large and offer enormous amounts of features (some important, some less important)? Example would be online document editors, online mail, online photo applications. Or should we point to ATAG and UAAG? > Kindest regards, > > Eric > -- Oracle <http://www.oracle.com> Peter Korn | Accessibility Principal Phone: +1 650 5069522 <tel:+1%20650%205069522> 500 Oracle Parkway | Redwood City, CA 94065 Green Oracle <http://www.oracle.com/commitment> Oracle is committed to developing practices and products that help protect the environment
Received on Thursday, 5 April 2012 16:46:34 UTC