- From: Alistair Garrison <alistair.j.garrison@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 16:54:36 +0000
- To: Eval TF <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
Dear All, A hypothetical question. Scene-setting: A qualified person has evaluated a single web page and has made a report - properly documenting all things asked for in the WCAG-EM. They tested the sufficient techniques used by the developers, and all relevant failure criteria. They have found no issues in the web content in the web page. Based on their report (but as a separate additional activity to the WCAG-EM) they have gone on to make a proper WCAG 2.0 conformance claim for the single web page. I have been asked to evaluate the web page above. I find the claim, and the supporting evidence. My question is this - "Am I honour bound to follow the procedure they have documented?" The thought in my head is yes - that I should follow their procedure if it is properly documented. I would of course check all relevant failure conditions, but if I didn't follow their procedure and started to test the page using tests from sufficient techniques I've chosen (which have not been used to develop the web content) I might find a failure or two - just because they have done things differently. Any thoughts on the above would be good, as we might have to mention the necessity to follow properly documented existing procedures when re-evaluating web pages somewhere in our document. All the best Alistair
Received on Monday, 18 November 2013 16:55:07 UTC