AW: Step 1.e: Define the Techniques to be used

Hi all,

we are evaluating the SCs and the subsections, we are not evaluating techniques. If an SC is not met one can write a description of the problem and a solution (depending on one of the three templates used). Instead of making 1e non-optional we should delete 1e.

Regs

Kerstin

> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: RichardWarren [mailto:richard.warren@userite.com]
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 31. Mai 2012 19:45
> An: detlev.fischer@testkreis.de; alistair.j.garrison@gmail.com; public-
> wai-evaltf@w3.org
> Betreff: Re: Step 1.e: Define the Techniques to be used
> 
> Hi Detlev,
> 
> As mentioned before, meeting one individual SC does not mean
> automatically
> meeting the actual guideline subsection. In the case you mention -
> correct
> semantics (headings) can provide a way for blind users to navigate more
> easily (incl. skiping blocks). However a sighted keyboard user with a
> standard browser does not usually have access to the semantic code in
> the
> way that a screen reader does. So for these users we still need to
> provide a
> "skip" link for long navigation lists at least.
> 
> So if "Commissioner says we have implemented skip links to meet 2.4.1
> Bypass
> Blocks"  then I say great, but you also need to have suitable heading
> codes
> (and possibly something like "skip code samples" if the site is an on-
> line
> course in HTML) so we will check that your site has mechanism/s for
> bypassing repetitive blocks and non-informative blocks whilst we are at
> it
> for compliance with guideline 2.4.1.
> 
> Richard
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: detlev.fischer@testkreis.de
> Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2012 4:22 PM
> To: alistair.j.garrison@gmail.com ; public-wai-evaltf@w3.org
> Subject: 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 18:10:46 UTC