See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 15 October 2012
A.3.1.3 Efficient Keyboard Access: The authoring tool user interface includes mechanisms to make keyboard access more efficient than sequential keyboard access. (Level AA)
<jeanne> JS: I was talking with Michael Cooper (who wrote the WCAG CR Test Harness) about creating a new instance of the WCAG test harness and tests for ATAG's CR use.
<jeanne> JR: This seems to be a very large project for a tester.
0. Determine if the platform on which the authoring tool is running supports a keyboard interface. If it does, then proceed to Step 1. If not, then skip to Step 8.
1. Document all mechanisms of the user interface for the authoring tool under test (from authoring tool documentation or from experience). If there are no such mechanisms, then skip to Step 8. Otherwise proceed to Step 2.
2. Document all keyboard access capabilities (via mechanisms from Step 1) supported by the keyboard interface (from Step 0) of the authoring tool(from authoring tool documentation or from experience). If there are fewer than two keyboard access capabilities supported, or if sequential keyboard access is not included, then skip to Step 7. Otherwise proceed to Step 3.
3. Determine/document the efficiency criteria (including rationale?) for evaluating keyboard access mechanisms that you will use for this particular authoring tool, platform, etc. Go to Step 4.
4. Document the "before state" of the authoring tool user interface on this platform. Use a sequential keyboard access mechanism (from Steps 1 and 2) that navigates the focus one-by-one through all of the items in an ordered set (e.g., menu items, form fields) until the desired item is reached and activated. Record the "after state" of the authoring tool user interface at this point....
scribe: Determine the "efficiency" of this keyboard access mechanism using your criteria from Step 3. Then go back so the "before state" of the authoring tool user interface (using any mechanism available from Step 1 to do this). Go to Step 5.
5. From the "before state" specified earlier, use a -different from sequentlal-? keyboard access mechanism (from Step 1) (such as keyboard shortcuts and the use of bypass links) on the same objects as used in Step 4. Record the "after state" of the authoring tool user interface at this point, and verify that this "after state" is the same as the "after state" from Step 4. Determine the...
scribe: "efficiency" of this access using the same criteria as used in Step 4. Go to Step 6.
6. Compare/evaluate the "efficiencies" determined from Step 4 and from Step 5. If as a result of this comparison/evaluation, Step 5 is more "efficient" than Step 4, then this authoring tool "passes" this SC on this platform. If Step 5 is more "efficient" than Step 4, or the "efficiencies" are the same for Steps 4 and 5, then this authoring tool fails this SC for this platform. Go to Step 7.
7. If the only keyboard access method supported (from Step 2) is sequential keyboard access, then this authoring tool "fails" this SC for this platform. Go to Step 8.
8. If the authoring tool has not been evaluated as "pass" or "fail" on this platform in previous steps up to this point, then the authoring tool is "N/A" for this SC on this platform.
JR: Is in favour of failure tests.
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.137 of Date: 2012/09/20 20:19:01 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) No ScribeNick specified. Guessing ScribeNick: Jan Inferring Scribes: Jan Default Present: Jeanne, Tim_Boland Present: Jeanne Tim_Boland Jan Found Date: 15 Oct 2012 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2012/10/15-au-minutes.html People with action items:[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]