- From: RichardWarren <richard.warren@userite.com>
- Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 16:04:24 +0100
- To: "Alistair Garrison" <alistair.j.garrison@gmail.com>, "Eval TF" <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
Hi Alistair, Well your suggestion is a procedure so we are on the right track. However asking developers for the techniques they used is not (in my experience)practical in the real world. We recently had to do a series of eleven ministry sites in just four days - it would take four weeks (at least) to get any response from the full eleven teams! The primary procedure must be stand-alone, independent, efficient, verifiable, repeatable and as simple as possible. Sorry Richard -----Original Message----- From: Alistair Garrison Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2012 3:07 PM To: RichardWarren ; Eval TF Subject: Re: Success, Failure techniques - side issue for discussion Dear All, "an evaluator needs a procedure which is capable of recognising and analysing the use (or not) of those techniques (added: and failure conditions) whilst still being aware that there could be alternative solutions"… Might such a procedure be: 1) ask the web developer what techniques they used; 2) determine if these techniques broadly fulfil the relevant Success Criteria; 3) if they do: evaluate if their selected techniques have been properly implemented, and evaluate all relevant failure techniques; and if they don't: suggest further techniques, but still evaluate if their selected techniques have been properly implemented, and evaluate all relevant failure techniques. You would of course need to ask for the techniques - in order to make such a procedure reproducible. All the best Alistair On 13 Jun 2012, at 15:35, RichardWarren wrote: > Hi Shadi, > > Thank you - I believe that your argument re-inforces my point that we > should concentrate on procedures for checking compliance, not solely the > existence (or not) of certain techniques. Yes F65 says that no alt = > failure, but H2 says that no alt is acceptable if the image is a link that > also contains text within the anchor element. > > I do not think it is our task to refine WCAG techniques etc. but rather > it is to check for compliance with the actual GUIDELINES in practice and > intent to ensure that the web content is accessible to all users. We thus > need a procedure that checks first for the obvious (in this case has the > developer used the technique of including and alt attribute and is it > suitable? ). Only then, if the obvious technique has not been used, we > need to include a check to see if the image is included in an anchor (or > other similar resource) with adjacent text within that resource (H2). Or, > indeed any other technique that ensures AT users can understand what the > image is for/about. > > I am afraid that evaluation cannot be properly done by simply failing an > issue because a certain "General Failure" applies. I still believe that > Success and failure Techniques are primarily aimed at the web developer > whereas an evaluator needs a procedure which is capable of recognising and > analysing the use (or not) of those techniques whilst still being aware > that there could be alternative solutions. > > If we stick stubbornly to the published techniques, and only the published > techniques, we are in danger of stifling the development of the web. > > Regards > > Richard > > > > -----Original Message----- From: Shadi Abou-Zahra > Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2012 1:20 PM > To: Richard Warren > Cc: Eval TF > Subject: 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 15:04:59 UTC