Re: What happens when an evaluation statement already exists?

Hi Alistair,

not following a particular technique where alternatives sufficient techniques exist would never be a reason to fail sites in a WCAG-Test. If a monitoring project said that according to their evaluation your website fails, it may not strictly follow the WCAG approach.  It may fail your site according to their particular test procedure, not according to WCAG. (In this way, we at BITV-Test still require text-only magnification and good graphics contrast, knowing that regarding these aspects we currently go beyond the minimum requirenments of WCAG).

So in my view, a WCAG checkpoint for correctly marked-up data tables (to take your example) would need a procedure that checks for *all* a11y-supported ways of marking up the table properly, and pass the content if any sufficient technique (or custom technique that has been demonstrated to meet the SC) has been used. I guess even ARIA role="rowheader" and role="columnheader" might qualify (at least in constrained environments when it can be shown that the selected set of UA and AT supports them).

That's why WCAG-oriented checkpoints or checking procedures will always be different from particular techniques (WCAG or other) - they focus at a certain SC (or a particular aspect of an umbrella SC like 1.3.1, lke table mark-up) not a particular technique. And they will need maintenance over time to include coverage of new approaches / techniques to meet the SC.

Best,
Detlev

--
Detlev Fischer
testkreis c/o feld.wald.wiese
Thedestr. 2, 22767 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

Alistair Garrison schrieb am 19.05.2014 12:14:

> Dear All, 
> 
> Let's say I'm a website owner and I follow specific techniques in order to
> create a website which, as far as I know, is compliant.  I make a claim to this
> effect, after evaluating the website and creating an evaluation statement
> (which details which checks I have done, from the techniques I have followed). 
> 
> 
> Now let's say a national monitoring project checks my website, but their
> conformance model is based on a different set of techniques, and of course
> checks.  
> 
> After their checks the monitoring project say that according to their
> evaluation my website fails - maybe one or two things.  Really only due to the
> mismatch between techniques e.g. I used the headers attribute technique to make
> tables compliant, whilst they only checked for scope, etc…
> 
> Would I have to change my website? This seems a little silly… 
> 
> My question is then - what happens when a proper evaluation statement already
> exists?
> 
> I think we have spoken around this subject a number of times, but there is no
> clear advice that I can find in the methodology.
> 
> My hope would be that if the evaluation statement has been made properly and is
> up-to-date, any further evaluations undertaken (with or without the knowledge
> of the website owner) should in some way respect the techniques followed and
> the way in which the page has been evaluated - especially if the further
> evaluations are to be used for monitoring, etc…
> 
> Otherwise, I worry that the techniques and their checks selected in outside
> evaluations, especially monitoring evaluations, will start to constrain the
> techniques which developers can follow - which is at odds with WCAG 2.0. 
> 
> I would suggest that the most likely area for discussion on this subject is
> step 1.d.
> 
> Anyway, interested to hear your thoughts and comments.
> 
> All the best 
> 
> Alistair
> 
> 
>

Received on Monday, 19 May 2014 13:45:03 UTC