Re: Fwd: Step 1.e: Define the Techniques to be used

Hi Alistair, hi all,

Don't know if it is a good idea to answer here since this now goes into the "Disposition of Comments" but I'll have a go nevertheless.

As I understand it, we need to look for each SC if any of the Sufficient Techniques (or a set of combined techniques as expressed in the options of the "How to meet" document) has been suvessfully used. For that, it is not sufficient to test techniques being put forward by the comissioner. 

Example: 
* Commissioner says "we have implemented skip links to meet 2.4.1 Bypass Blocks" 
* You evaluate and find that for some reason skip links aren't properly implemented (fail of that technique)
* There is a proper headings structure that meets SC 4.2.1 (or ARIA landmarks in a context where that is accessibility supported)

Now as long as you don't hit a failure, I guess you woud need to say pass to the SC even though the technique submitted did not work.
(Having said that, the faulty skip links may fail other SC, but not SC 2.4.1).

Any thoughts?

Regards,
Detlev

----- Original Message -----
From: alistair.j.garrison@gmail.com
To: public-wai-evaltf@w3.org
Date: 31.05.2012 17:06:52
Subject: Fwd: Step 1.e: Define the Techniques to be used


> Dear All, 
> 
> Would it be possible to add my comments about Step 1.e to the comments document - http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments
> 
> Begin forwarded message:
> 
>> From: Alistair Garrison <alistair.j.garrison@gmail.com>
>> Subject: Step 1.e: Define the Techniques to be used
>> Date: 10 May 2012 10:48:41 CEST
>> To: Eval TF <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
>> 
>> Dear All, 
>> 
>> "Step 1.e: Define the Techniques to be used" - could we consider making this step non-optional?
>> 
>> The first reason being that we really need to check their implementation of the techniques (W3C, their own code of best practice or whatever) they say they use.
>> 
>> For example: 
>> 
>> - Case 1) If they have done something by using technique A, and we evaluate using technique B there could be an issue (they might fail B);
>> - Case 2) If they have done something by using technique A, and we evaluate using technique A and B there still could be an issue (they might fail B); 
>> - Case 3) If they have done something by using technique A, and we evaluate using technique A - it seems to work.
>> 
>> The second reason being that testing seems only to be really replicable if we know what the techniques were they said they implemented - otherwise, two different teams could easily get two different results based on the cases above.
>> 
>> I would be interested to hear your thoughts.
>> 
>> Very best regards
>> 
>> Alistair
>> 
>

Received on Thursday, 31 May 2012 15:23:32 UTC