Edit comment LC-2860 for Accessibility Guidelines Working Group

Previous: LC-2866 Next: LC-2844

Comment LC-2860: Comment Shortname:; Commenter: timvanschie1@gmail.com; Message-id:; Section of the document concerned:

or; Refinement of the section concerned:; Status:
assigned to; Type:; Resolution status:
Response drafted Resolution implemented Reply sent to commenter; Response status:
No response from Commenter yet Commenter approved disposition Commenter objected to disposition
Commenter's response (URI):; Comment:
I think it should be made more clear that techniques are scope by a Succescriterium. So a technique only applies to those situations that a Succescriterium speaks about and no more. This is important for both sufficient as well as failure techniques.

E.g. F62 is a failure technique for SC 1.3.1 and 4.1.1. BUT step 2 of the test does not lead to a failure of 4.1.1, only step 1 does. Still the technique says either one of those steps lead to a failure for 1.3.1 AND 4.1.1.

That's not correct, but could be resolved by stating clearly in the document 'Understanding Techniques for WCAG Success Criteria' that the techniques are scoped by a Succescriterium. Then step 2 of the test will never be tested for 4.1.1, since that Succescriterium doesn't mention referencing to non-existing ID's (only the usage of unique ID's).

(There are more failure techniques like this.)

This would solve unclearness in relation to the fact that some techniques try to solve more problems than actually minimally required by a Succescriterium. Ofcourse this is good from the perspective of the webdeveloper who has to build as accessible as possible, but from the perspective of website inspectors it has to be clear what is minimally required. A clear statement that the techniques only apply within the scope of a Succescriterium will help avoiding confusion about this.

Please let me know if there are any questions. After november 6th you can only contact me by e-mailing to timvanschie1@gmail.com. Until then, you can use t.vanschie@accessibility.nl.

Proposed Change:
Clearly stating that the techniques are scoped by a Succescriterium (in the document 'Understanding Techniques for WCAG Success Criteria'). So techniques only apply to those situations that a Succescriterium is about.; Related issues: (space separated ids); WG Notes: http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-TECHS/F62.html We should discuss whether this is really a 1.3.1 issue also. One possible view is that this results in a 4.1.1 issue and depending on the 4.1.1 issue there may be other SC violations, but those may be 1.1.1, 1.3.1, or 4.1.2. I agree with the resolution because if we are going to state that a web page that validates correctly meets 4.1.1, then we are placing additional criteria on 4.1.1 if we say that all ID references must be accurate (e.g. <label for="foo"> in a document with no id="foo"). HTML5 requires that the "for" match an id on a form control, but earlier doctypes don't. @@ remove third bullet under failure 1 on http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-TECHS/F62.html; Resolution: Thank you for your comment. We do strive for accuracy in mapping sufficient techniques and failures to the correct success criteria and to not over-reach. We are very interested in any specific examples that you have where you feel we fall short of this goal. In your message you refer specifically to a concern about F62 and indicate that step #2 in the procedure ("Check that elements or attributes that refer to unique identifiers inside the same document have a corresponding id value.") does not result in a failure of 4.1.1 as indicated in the failure document (http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-TECHS/F62.html). The working group agrees that you are correct in your comment - the failure will be updated to remove the third bullet point under example 1 ("a DAISY document...") and step #2 of the procedure will be removed.; (Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption)