E-mail List Archives

Re: Evaluating accessibility level for managers

for

From: Jon Gunderson
Date: Jun 25, 2006 6:40PM


WCAG 1.0 has no specific rules for html for any of the
requirements. All automated tools make there own
interpretation of WCAG 1.0 and Section 508 in terms of what
they check. The Functional Accessibility Evaluators rules are
based on the needs of people with disabilities and improving
interoperability for the benefit of all users of the web.

Jon


---- Original message ----
>Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 17:28:22 +0100
>From: "Patrick H. Lauke" < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
>Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Evaluating accessibility level for
managers
>To: WebAIM Discussion List < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
>
> >> From: "Rainer Wagener"
>
> >> I was denied some 16% of having implemented 'Navigation &
> >> Orientation' correctly.
> >> Reason: 'all h1 elements should have text content that
> > matches all or
> >> part of the corresponding title content'.
> >>
> >> I never heard about such a rule. I wonder how it could be
derived
> >>from WCAG.
> >>
>
>Jon Gunderson wrote:
>> Rainer,
>>
>> 1. Titling is part of WCAG 1.0 through the following
checkpoints:
>>
>> Checkpoint 3.5 Use header elements to convey document
>> structure and use them according to specification. [Priority 2]
>>
>> Checkpoint 13.4 Use navigation mechanisms in a consistent
>> manner. [Priority 2]
>>
>> In WCAG 2.0 working draft there is even more on titling:
>>
>> Success Criteria 2.4.3 Web units have titles
>> Success Criteria 2.4.5 Titles, headings, and labels are
>> descriptive.
>>
>> 2. One of the main reasons FAE [1] was created to re-emphasize
>> navigation issues through structural markup. Current
>> automated tools ignore these issues by assigning them to
>> manual checks.
>>
>> FAE is designed for functional accessibility and give
>> developers clear techniques for implementing section 508 and
>> WCAG requirments.
>
>But, as it stands, the automated check that is performed is
based on the
>*opinion* of those who coded the test and/or heuristics, no?
>
>I don't mind, as long as this fact is clearly advertised.
Otherwise,
>this sort of thing can lead again to managers demanding 100%
results in
>a tool, and developers basically having to code to the tool's
whims
>rather than to any accessibility benefits/considerations.
>
>P
>--
>Patrick H. Lauke
>___________
>re