Proposal for next Questionnaire (was: Re: A question about Step 4.b: Use WCAG 2.0 Techniques Where Possible)

Hi everyone,

Shadi's reply to my question regarding Step 4.b: "Use WCAG 2.0 Techniques Where Possible" suggests that the point I raised is beyond the scope of WCAG-EM. The lack of further answers indicates that this might be consensus in our group. 

To clarify and clearly delimit this scope of WCAG-EM, I suggest the three statements below that might be used in at the beginning of Step 4: "Audit the Selected Sample". (I also thought whether they might fit into step Step 1.e: "Define the Techniques to be Used (Optional)" but the aim of this section is different.

Eric,  maybe we can put these statements (as they are, or in modified form) in the next questionnaire to see if this is ideed consensus?

"(1) WCAG-EM provides no details regarding the application of Sufficient Techniques in conformance evaluation beyond the enumeration of options in the WCAG Quickref. Any Sufficient Technique (and any technique that is demonstrably sufficient for the relevant context of use) may be used in whatever combination as long as all page content satisfies the respective Success Criterion."

"(2) WCAG-EM provides no guidance beyond what is stated in the normative section of WCAG 2.0 as to whether web content satisfies of fails a particular Success Criterion. While the Sufficient Techniques are informative only, their examples and test procedures should be used as guidance and referenced when rating web content."

"(3) Success Criteria may be met either by WCAG's documented Sufficient Techniques or by any author-provided technique that demonstrably satisfies the Success Criterion AND has sufficient accessibility support for the users of the site or application under test."

I hope that these statements encapsulate the status quo. If they do not, I would be glad if you could suggest modifications. 

Just to be clear, I can live with this position. In my view, it just moves many of the issues critical for a valid a11y assessment outside the scope of WCAG-EM. However, this may be better then engaging in protracted (potentially endless) arguments about the details of evaluation (should some content be allowed to pass or should it fail).

Best, Detlev



--
Detlev Fischer
testkreis c/o feld.wald.wiese
Borselstraße 3-7 (im Hof), 22765 Hamburg

Mobil +49 (0)1577 170 73 84
Tel +49 (0)40 439 10 68-3
Fax +49 (0)40 439 10 68-5

http://www.testkreis.de
Beratung, Tests und Schulungen für barrierefreie Websites



----- Original Message -----
From: shadi@w3.org
To: detlev.fischer@testkreis.de
Date: 26.06.2012 11:29:44
Subject: Re: A question about Step 4.b: Use WCAG 2.0 Techniques Where Possible


> Hi Detlev,
> 
> To your question:
>> Should WCAG-EM explicitly address this issue? If so, how?
> 
> No, I don't think WCAG-EM should address this explicitly as these are 
> interpretations of the Success Criteria.
> 
> Having said that, I encourage people to send feedback to WCAG Working 
> Group so that issues can be identified and fixed (likely through the 
> Techniques or Understanding documents).
> 
> Maybe in the phase where we test our methodology in practice we could 
> also collect these observations and send as a collective feedback from 
> Eval TF to the WCAG WG.
> 
> Best,
>   Shadi
> 
> 
> On 26.6.2012 09:35, Detlev Fischer wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> I'd like to hear your views regarding a particular problem when using
>> Sufficient Techniques to check whether a page conforms.
>> 
>> I take it that generally, the procedure might look like this:
>> 
>> 1. Check if one of the numbered Sufficient Techniques (or options
>> grouping techniques) has been used successfully
>> 2. Check whether another (yet undocumented) Technique has been used AND
>> can be deemed sufficient / AT-supported
>> 3. Check if one of the Failures documented for that SC applies
>> 
>> As we work through a page, there will often be situations where
>> particular instances of content use one technique and other instances
>> use a different technique. This is quite acceptable for images, links,
>> form controls, etc.
>> 
>> For some SC, however, the situation is more complex, and I would like to
>> hear whether you think that mixing different techniques for meeting the
>> SC on a page would also be OK in these cases. Two examples:
>> 
>> 1.4.3 Contrast (Minimum)
>> Most parts of text satisfy G18 (sufficient default contrast). Some other
>> parts have insufficent contrast but satisfy the SC via Technique G174
>> (style switcher). The switch may be far off the part of text triggering
>> the need to activate it - for example, at the page start.
>> 
>> 2.4.1 Bypass blocks
>> Some sections can be bypassed by using skip links (G123), some other
>> parts use (hidden) headings (H69), one submenu can be bypassed by being
>> collapsible/expandable (SCR28)
>> 
>> Especially in the second example the problem is obvious: there is no
>> consistent way to bypass blocks, which could be quite irritating.
>> However, all content can be bypassed using one or the other of
>> documented sufficient techniques.
>> 
>> Should WCAG-EM explicitly address this issue? If so, how?
>> 
>> This is not a leading question. I am really uncertain about the best way
>> to deal with this issue. I just feel it should not be down to personal
>> evaluator preferences.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Detlev
>> 
> 
> -- 
> 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, 27 June 2012 12:00:41 UTC