Re: difference between techniques and procedures

Hi Shadi, all,

I don't agree with referencing techniques, even when there are 'just' the failure techniques. We should instead and if we don't delete 1e reference to the testing procedures. I think the procedures will be more stable than the techniques. Also it will be more sustainable than to take the techniques.

Best

Kerstin

Am 08.06.2012 um 14:03 schrieb Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>:

> I think we should continue to reference the "Techniques" rather than the test procedures which are a sub-part of a technique. The other parts of a technique can also be relevant for evaluation, for example the "applicability" clauses that an evaluators needs to consider too.
> 
> Also, I think that one of the issues is that WCAG 2.0 and supporting documents do not explain "Failure Techniques" ("Common Failures") [1] clearly enough. We probably need to describe these a little more.
> 
> [1] <http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/failures.html>
> 
> Best,
>  Shadi
> 
> 
> On 2.6.2012 12:50, RichardWarren wrote:
>> In the light of our discussions on step 1e I think that Step 4b also appears to be confusing. I think we are trying to say that we will record the testing techniques as described at http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/intro.html#intro_testing_techs .
>> 
>> When W3C describes techniques in its techniques collection it refers to these testing techniques as “procedures” at the end of each document under the title “Tests”.  See an example at http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/G1.html#G1-tests
>> 
>> We too should use the words test procedure when we refer to what we do when we check for compliance. This would avoid confusion between the techniques that the web-designer uses to create an accessible page and the processes we, as evaluators, use to check that the page is compliant (either by using a W3C technique, or some other technique).
>> 
>> Richard
> 
> -- 
> Shadi Abou-Zahra - http://www.w3.org/People/shadi/
> Activity Lead, W3C/WAI International Program Office
> Evaluation and Repair Tools Working Group (ERT WG)
> Research and Development Working Group (RDWG)
>

Received on Friday, 8 June 2012 12:17:52 UTC