W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > July to September 2009

Re: Bypass Blocks (2.4.1)

From: Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com>
Date: Sun, 09 Aug 2009 16:58:39 +0100
Message-ID: <4A7EF22F.9020206@googlemail.com>
To: N Maffeo <maffeonjr@yahoo.com>
CC: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org, David Dorward <david@dorward.me.uk>
On 09/08/2009 10:40, N Maffeo wrote:
> You made a referral to the context of the site. What should we check in
> context to determine if a specific technique is sufficient to verify
> Bypass Blocks?

Techniques are not sufficient unless the success criterion is passed.

> When the company checks the context of site (as you indirectly suggest)
> for Bypass Blocks what should we look for

There is no definitive list.

As we cannot see your site, and as you have not provided a test case, 
your company is the only party who can make any realistic assessment.

> to determine what rules are  required (G1,G123, G123, H69, AND H50)?

Those are not "rules" in a standard.

Those are suggested techniques in an advisory Note.

"'Sufficient techniques' are sufficient to meet a particular Success 
Criterion (either by themselves or in combination with other 
techniques), while other techniques are advisory and therefore optional. 
None of the techniques are required to meet WCAG 2.0, although some may 
be the only known method if a particular technology is used"


What you need to /test/ is whether "A mechanism is available to bypass 
blocks of content that are repeated on multiple Web pages", given the 
definition of "mechanism" at:


If any of the techniques, in any combination, help you pass the test, 
then great. If you fail the test despite using any of the techniques, in 
any combination, you still fail the test. If you pass the test without 
using any of the techniques, then you still pass the test.

Some sites may need to apply more than one of these techniques in order 
to pass the test; some sites may need to apply none; some sites may need 
only one.

So your question is misconceived and unanswerable.

Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis
Received on Sunday, 9 August 2009 15:59:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:36:34 UTC