Re: Success, Failure techniques - side issue for discussion

Hi Richard,

Looking at "General Failure F65" as per your example:

Case 1 correctly fails because there is no alt attribute and a screen 
reader would in most cases start reading the filename. Your example 
would work if you use null alt-text as "General Failure F65" advises 
about in section "Related Techniques".

Case 2 uses the alt attribute so it does not fail "General Failure F65" 
(but we can't say much more about its conformance just from F65 alone).

Now this is exactly the point: by looking only at the section called 
"Tests" we miss out important context and explanations, such as the 
important reference to "Technique H67" in this example.

WCAG 2.0 Techniques and Failures (as Detlev correctly points out the 
terminology should be) are far from complete or perfect. We can talk 
about how to improve them both from how they are written and to how they 
are presented to evaluators. We can also explain the concept in our 
document more clearly. I think this would get more to the core of the 
problem then by trying to re-label the sections as they are.

Regards,
   Shadi


On 13.6.2012 13:04, RichardWarren wrote:
> Sorry but I got my cases mixed up.
> The last paragraphs should have read
>
> NOW here is the rub. – Failure F65 says that both my case 1 and H2 are failures because neither use the alt attribute !!!! So if I rely on Failure Techniques I would fail both my case 1 and anything using H2.
>
> HOWEVER – using testing procedures I can check that case 2 passes because it has (reasonably) meaningful alt attributes; whilst case 1 passes because it makes perfect sense when read out by my screen reader, my blind testers confirm it is good, it still makes sense if the image fails to display. The only thing about case 1 is that Google will not catalogue the image (which might be a good thing !)
>
> Sorry about that – poor proof reading on my part
> Richard
>
> From: RichardWarren
> Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2012 11:21 AM
> To: Eval TF
> Subject: Success, Failure techniques - side issue for discussion
>
> Hi.
> I would like to drop in a  (very rough) example to explain why I am concerned that we are getting hung up on the techniques used by the developers rather than the procedures used by the evaluator.
>
> Case 1
> <ol>
> <li>Here is a picture of Uncle Fred wearing his bright Christmas Jumper<img src=”fred.jpg”></li>
> <li>Here is a picture of Aunt Mary setting fire to the Christmas pudding<img src=”mary.jpg”</li>
> <ol>
>
> Case 2
> <ol>
> <li><img src=”fred.jpg” alt =”Uncle Fred”></li>
> <li><img src=”mary.jpg” alt = “Aunt Mary”>  </li>
> </ol>
>
> Now case 2 employs the “alt” attribute, so it meets a success technique (even though it is less informative than case 1)
>
> If Example 1 were links (using the<  a>  element) it would also pass muster (H2 Combining adjacent image and text links), but it is not a link and there is no documentation (that I know of) within WCAG about this specific situation (within the<li>  element).
>
> NOW here is the rub. – Failure F65 says that both my example 2 and H2 are failures because neither use the alt attribute !!!!   So if I rely on Failure Techniques I would fail both my example 2 and anything using H2.
>
> HOWEVER – using testing procedures I can check that example 1 passes because it has (reasonably) meaningful alt attributes;  whilst example 2 passes because it makes perfect sense when read out by my screen reader, my blind testers confirm it is good, it still makes sense if the image fails to display. The only thing about example 2 is that Google will not catalogue the image (which might be a good thing !)
>
>
> So I return to my original thought that step 1e should be about procedures not techniques.
>
> Bets wishes
> 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 Wednesday, 13 June 2012 12:21:25 UTC