- From: Kerstin Probiesch <k.probiesch@googlemail.com>
- Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 17:29:20 +0200
- To: "'Alistair Garrison'" <alistair.j.garrison@gmail.com>, "'Eval TF'" <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
Hi Alistair, > I'd still like to know how you (Kerstein Probiesch) actually know when > 'Rome' is reached? Rome is reached when a person has arrived at this destination. > And, again I would ask - Do you follow a check list, > or is it gut feeling? Evaluation procedures are quite similar to WCAG-EM and depending on the contract I use one of the three versions of the template. Best Kerstin > > Alistair > > On 14 Jun 2012, at 14:10, Kerstin Probiesch wrote: > > > Hi Alistair, > > > > even if a technique can be submitted it doesn't mean that it will be > > submitted. Until a technique is accepted and an updated version of > WCAG2 is > > published time goes by and it would mean, that a working technique > couldn't > > be used because it is not part of the techniques document. We should > also > > consider that we speak not only about HTML and ARIA but also about > PDF, > > where there are discussions about (as I understood 'differences') > between > > WCAG 2.0 techniques and PDF/UA techniques. > > > > There are many ways to rome and a way is successful if rome is > reached, even > > when the route is not one of the suggested route in existing street > maps. > > Let's see the WCAG 2.0 as something like this: even when I don't > think about > > going to rome but to a friend's house in an area nearby google maps > gives me > > a route which would indicate, that I have to follow a route which > will take > > me a 17 minutes (walk). Instead of taking this route I tested a small > way > > through the forest without any problem and which took me just 8 > minutes. > > (the time is not that much important, even if this way would take > also 17 > > minutes, I would take this one, because it's nice. Google Maps > doesn't even > > show this way on the map, because they don't know about it. Would I > submit > > the way to google maps? I don't know. Would I submit this way to open > street > > map? Perhaps. Anyway: if someone would ask me for the route to this > area I > > would suggest the way I took successfully several times before, even > when > > google maps doesn't show and know anything about it. With the > techniques I > > think it's similar. If I can reach my goal successfully everything is > fine, > > even if the technique is not part of the document. The comparison > falls a > > bit short and I don't want to say that the sufficient techniques are > bad, > > complicated, not fast enough and so on. But what do we know about the > future > > and all techniques used in all relevant technologies? And we should > also > > motivate developers not only in using the sufficient techniques but > also in > > developing new techniques. > > > > Best > > > > Kerstin > > > > > > > > > > Von: Alistair Garrison [mailto:alistair.j.garrison@gmail.com] > > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 14. Juni 2012 11:44 > > An: Shadi Abou-Zahra; Eval TF > > Betreff: Re: [attempted summary] Techniques, Procedures, and > Checklists > > > > Hi Shadi, > > > > All sounds fine. > > > > But, can I just check. > > > > Say I'm an evaluator with my own set of direct checks for WCAG 2.0 > > SCs. Would it be the case that in order to use each of my own checks > for > > conformance - I really should create a technique, provide the check I > wish > > to use as a way to evaluate this technique, and then publish it - so > it can > > become a publicly documented, vetted, and broadly > consensed/recognized > > Technique. I suppose it could even be published through the > "Techniques for > > WCAG 2.0 submission form"... http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/TECHS- > SUBMIT/ > > > > All the best > > > > Alistair > > > > On 14 Jun 2012, at 11:25, Shadi Abou-Zahra wrote: > > > > > > Hi Alistair, > > > > As far as I know WCAG WG is very clear that the instance of > Techniques that > > they publish are *not* exhaustive and *not* exclusive. In fact, they > > encourage the development of Techniques by technology developers, > specific > > to different languages and regions, or specific to particular > contexts (for > > example in a particular network setting or such). > > > > However, they *do* encourage the use of publicly documented, vetted, > and > > broadly consensed/recognized Techniques for the particular context > (country, > > region, technology, etc) for development and evaluation. > > > > The emphasis is clearly on the Success Criteria rather than on the > > Techniques, which is why they are optional in the methodology. > > > > Regards, > > Shadi > > > > > > On 14.6.2012 11:11, Alistair Garrison wrote: > > > > Hi Shadi, > > > > With all the debate, I think the "elephant in the room" question is > for the > > W3C/WAI WCAG 2.0 WG to clearly answer: > > > > "Do they envisage, and wish to encourage, WCAG 2.0 SCs to be > evaluated > > directly using an evaluators own checks and intuition; or do they > envisage, > > and wish to encourage, WCAG 2.0 SCs to be evaluated through the test > > procedures from the _instances_ of 'sufficient' Techniques (and > failure > > conditions) that they regularly publish?" > > > > All the best > > > > Alistair > > > > On 14 Jun 2012, at 10:38, Shadi Abou-Zahra wrote: > > > > Dear Eval TF, > > > > There has been a lengthy discussion with many different points raised > in it. > > This is an attempt to summarize key points to try and draw out some > > decisions; please add clarifications or points I may have missed. > > > > > > #1. Making the use of Techniques mandatory > > > > The thread was initiated in a request to make Step 1.e "Define the > > Techniques" to be used as non-optional. Here is the initial mail: > > -<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-evaltf/2012May/0008> > > > > It seems that the base assumption for this request is that developers > will > > use documented Techniques and provide a comprehensive list to an > evaluator > > to check. Several people have responded that this model may not > always work, > > and that the methodology also needs to work when the evaluator has no > > information about how the website has been developed. > > > > *Suggested action:* decide if Step 1.e should be optional or > mandatory. > > > > > > #2. Difference between Techniques and Failures > > > > A second related thread was initiated in a request to use the term > "Test > > Procedure" rather than "Technique": Here is the initial mail: > > -<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-evaltf/2012Jun/0019> > > > > It seems that the motivation for this request is to differentiate > between > > guidance that the developer follows to implement accessibility > features and > > checks that the evaluator uses to determine barriers. It seems that > the > > misunderstanding stems from the fact that WCAG 2 uses "Techniques" as > an > > umbrella term for both "Sufficient Techniques" and "General > Failures". Also > > "General Failures" seem less well explained. > > > > *Suggest action:* revise how we refer to and explain "WCAG Failures". > > > > > > #3. Open-ended concept of WCAG 2 Techniques > > > > Throughout the discussion there seems to be misunderstandings around > the > > _concept_ of Techniques (the umbrella term) and the _instances_ of > > Techniques that are regularly published by the WCAG Working Group. It > seems > > that this point also relates to the previous point about the clarity > of > > explanations in WCAG 2, especially for evaluators. > > > > While we are not chartered to develop Techniques (including "General > > Failures") nor to edit the supporting documents for WCAG 2 > ("Techniques for > > WCAG 2.0" and "Understanding WCAG 2.0"), we can suggest changes to > the WCAG > > WG. We can also add specific explanations and references that are > > particularly relevant to evaluators in our methodology. > > > > *Suggest action:* explore potential improvements to WCAG 2 resources > from > > the perspective of evaluators. > > > > > > Regards, > > Shadi > > > > -- > > 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) > > > > > > > > > > -- > > 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 Thursday, 14 June 2012 15:29:00 UTC