Re: Special Web Page Proposal for W3C site - discussing proper use of WCAG Techniques

 

On Feb 17, 2013, at 3:53 AM, Ramón Corominas <rcorominas@technosite.es> wrote:

> Some comments about the document:
> 
> #1. SUFFICIENT: "Sufficient techniques" are only "sufficient" to meet a Success Criterion if the technique is accessibility supported.
GV: added.  
> There are many "sufficient" techniques that do not guarantee accessibility if you consider MacOS or Linux platforms (for example, most of the Flash or PDF techniques). This must be clarified.
>  
> #2. FAILURES: Although, technically speaking, the failures mean direct violations of the Success Criteria, this does not necessarily mean a failure of WCAG 2.0 Conformance, since they may affect content that is not relied upon. In general, any inaccessible content that meets Conformance Requirement #5 may fail the SC, but still allowing Conformance. For example, a totally inaccessible PDF document that is just a "print version" of a completely accessible HTML document.
GV:  GOOD CATCH.  FIxed. 

> 
> #3. Accessibility: Google Docs is not only inaccessible to blind users, the document is also failing SC 1.4.4 Resize Text (I have low vision and increasing the text size produces overlaps and the content loss).
GV: which browser are you using.   I can zoom  and enlarge text (wrapping ) with out any problem.     Also, my colleagues who are blind tested it and said it worked for them.   Hmmm.     Do you have another to suggest that is better? 

thanks



 
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Ramón.
> 
> Gregg wrote:
> 
>>> #1. The document does not describe the relationship between techniques and failures to the WCAG2 Success Criteria. There is some wording in Understanding WCAG 2.0 that could be at least referenced to put this resource more in context of the overall WCAG2 framework and resources.
>> Fixed   See new draft
>> http://tinyurl.com/WCAGTechNote
>>> #2. The document seems to primarily talk about techniques and failures document by the WCAG WG and does not talk much about the possibility for other techniques and failures. This may reinforce the unfortunate myth that only WCAG WG can document techniques and failures.
>> Fixed 
>>> #3. (Minor) the overall tone seems more preventive and negative rather than inviting. For example, how about something like "The Role of Techniques and Failures in WCAG 2" rather than "Proper Use of WCAG 2.0 Techniques and Failures"? I think we need to find the balance between explaining what techniques and failures are, and cautioning potential misuse due to misunderstanding of their intended purpose.
>> Yes it is.  And after reading it over again (and making edits to address your comments )  it still is a bit - and I think perhaps it should be.   (not negative - but short and focused on clarifying rather than instructing.      "The Role of...."   is all in the Understanding document.    We were asked for something VERY SHORT and VERY CLEAR  that could be used by people who misunderstood the Role.    I am concerned that adding more words -- or turning this into a general discussion -- would defeat what we were asked for. That being said - I have tried to add more text to the document to help with your comments above.   Take a look. 
>