- From: Michael Stenitzer <stenitzer@wienfluss.net>
- Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2009 17:48:17 +0200
- To: Shawn Henry <shawn@w3.org>
- CC: achuter@technosite.es, EOWG <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>, WCAG WG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
i would prefer something more specific which tells the user "not applicable because no content violates the Success criteria". at least in a note under the table. in the table you could use a short version. regards, michael Shawn Henry wrote: > Here's the text I referred to in the EOWG teleconference, from > Understanding WCAG 2.0: "Conformance to a standard means that you meet > or satisfy the 'requirements' of the standard. In WCAG 2.0 the > 'requirements' are the Success Criteria. To conform to WCAG 2.0, you > need to satisfy the Success Criteria , that is, there is no content > which violates the Success Criteria.. > Note: This means that if there is no content to which a success > criterion applies, the success criterion is satisfied." > > - > http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/conformance.html#uc-conformance-whatis-head > > > For the BAD reports, > One could suggest that "no content" would be a better marker to match > this wording. > One could argue that "not applicable" is better because it is more common. > (I, for one, don't feel strongly either way.) > > Alan, are you suggesting something more specific? > > ~Shawn > > Alan Chuter wrote: >> In the evaluation report of the Before-and-After Demo many of the >> success criteria are marked as "N/A" (not applicable). In my >> experience this is a cause of confusion. Accessibility evaluation >> reports may flag a success criterion or checkpoint as not applicable >> when: >> >> * The construct or element is not supported by the technology used. >> * The specific element concerned does not appear in the content. >> * The problem does not arise (like colour difference in black and >> white content, or that there is no need to divide content into >> sections when it is brief). >> >> The UWEM methodology [1] tries to define the applicability using XPath >> expressions where possible, restricting it to specific markup elements >> and attributes or CSS selectors. WCAG 2.0 is much broader, defining it >> at the level of the technology used, such as "HTML and XHTML." >> >> It might be useful guidance to make this explicit in the BAD reports, >> but even more, the WCAG WG could give its opinion to make clear when a >> success criterion can be flagged as "not applicable" in a conformance >> report. This would be at a global level, not for each technique (for >> now at least). >> >> regards, >> >> Alan >> >> >> [1] http://www.wabcluster.org/uwem1_2/ >> [2] http://www.w3.org/WAI/demos/bad/draft/2009/report/before/home.html >> > -- Michael Stenitzer | WIENFLUSS information.design.solutions KG t: +43 (650) 9358770 | proschkogasse 1/5 | 1060 wien f: +43 (1) 23680199 | www.wienfluss.net
Received on Monday, 5 October 2009 15:48:52 UTC