E-mail List Archives

Search E-mail List Archives for

Number of posts in this thread: 2 (In chronological order)

From: julian.rickards@ndm.gov.on.ca
Date: Thu, Aug 14 2003 7:32AM
Subject: RE: WAVE 3.0 and Toolbar
No previous message | Next message →

> Do you "validate" your pages in order to be proud of
> something, or to make
> them more accessible to all? In the latter case, why would
> you pollute the page with such a statement?

Misquoted, misinterpretted, misunderstood, wrong! Actually, if you re-read
my message, you will find that I DID NOT EVER say that I was going to put
the WCAG icon on it or that my suggestion of the "Congrats" message would be
put on my web page. Rather what I was saying was that the WAVE "report" was
to provide some message as to how well the page adhered to the standard I
had chosen. As it works now, I have to review all of the icons to see what
they are refering to and determine if their presence is an indicator of
"passing" or "failing" with respect to the standard I had tested the page
against. Some form of report would be useful to allow me to determine how
close to the standard is my page. I realize that manual checks may not be
"programmable" but other checks are. The "congrats" message I suggested was
to only be with respect to the programmable checks, not to the manual
checks.

> > I know there have been discussions regarding the value
> > of the WCAG "badges" but if the page meets the requirements
> setout by the
> > specific standard, at least the ones that may be checked
> automatically, then
> > a statement to that effect would be useful.
>
> Useful to whom? And it would be false.

Useful to the tester of course.

So, are you suggesting that accessibility validation cannot be programmed?
Let's step back a bit. The WCAG group created their own validation tests
against their different levels of priorities. When, as best as the program
can do, a page has been determined to meet the requirements of a particular
level, the WCAG suggests that you are welcome to place the badge on the
page. If I remember correctly, UsableNet, Bobby and A-Prompt are similar -
pass the test and you can use the badge. So, what is false about that? If I
review the manual tests and find that I have met those requirements too,
then, personal taste aside, I am welcome to put the badge on my page.

Are you suggesting that the standards are false? Well, that may be true and
there have been many discussions about this here but until WCAG2 is
released, then all we have is WCAG1 and Section 508. If any one of us wants
to "tell" prospective clients that we are capable of creating accessible
webpages, what quicker way is there than to make our own pages accessible
and demonstrate that with the WCAG badge.

What are the options? One would be not to put a badge. You could still state
that you can create accessible pages (as any one, including those who make
absolutely no attempt at doing so) but how would you prove your
capabilities? You could create a text link to the WCAG test but all that
does is avoid the appearance of the badge. Furthermore, a plain text link is
not as visible as the badge so it would take some reading on the part of
your prospective client to locate the link and test your page against the
validation program. Another option would be to explain how you have
incorporated accessibility features into your page but again, that might
take a lot of reading. If you really don't agree with the standards as they
are right now, you could state why they don't meet the true needs for
accessibility but can you prove that or demonstrate that? Again, a
long-winded explanation may be used but do you want to force your
prospective clients to read your treatise?

Yes, the WCAG standards may be unsatisfactory. Yes, validation against them
may not demonstrate true accessibility. Yes, the icons may be ugly to some.
But, what choices do we have? If I really want to make my pages accessible,
do I go with the current standards?, do I wait for WCAG2?, or do I make my
own determination as to what accessibility means?

Confused and somewhat disheartened,

Jules






----
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or view list archives,
visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/

From: Jukka K. Korpela
Date: Thu, Aug 14 2003 9:11AM
Subject: RE: WAVE 3.0 and Toolbar
← Previous message | No next message

On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = wrote:

> Misquoted, misinterpretted, misunderstood, wrong! Actually, if you re-read
> my message, you will find that I DID NOT EVER say that I was going to put
> the WCAG icon on it or that my suggestion of the "Congrats" message would be
> put on my web page.

Well, you referred to "discussions regarding the value of the WCAG
'badges'", which have specifically revolved around the idea of putting
them onto pages that purportedly conform to WCAG,

> As it works now, I have to review all of the icons to see what
> they are refering to and determine if their presence is an indicator of
> "passing" or "failing" - -

If you think that the understandability of the report is not good, why not
say that, instead of referring to "badges"? Most accessibility tools have
poor accessibility in their reports, and their authors don't seem to
realize this. But it's an entirely different topic.

> So, are you suggesting that accessibility validation cannot be programmed?

I'm not suggesting anything, just stating a fact. If you think it can be
programmed, you haven't understood the accessibility criteria. Even those
that look programmatically checkable are something quite different.
The classical example is the alt attribute. You can check whether it is
present for each <img> element, for example; actually, even a validator (a
real validator, i.e. markup validator) will do that, if you use any modern
document type definition. But it is impossible to check automatically that
the requirement of providing an _alternate_ text has been fulfilled, i.e.
text that adequately replaces the image when the image is not displayed.

> The WCAG group created their own validation tests
> against their different levels of priorities.

I'm not sure I see what tests you are referring to. The checklist?
It's not an automated test.

> When, as best as the program
> can do, a page has been determined to meet the requirements of a particular
> level, the WCAG suggests that you are welcome to place the badge on the
> page. If I remember correctly, UsableNet, Bobby and A-Prompt are similar -
> pass the test and you can use the badge. So, what is false about that?

The fact that the claim of the badge does not correspond to reality.
Actually, you can use any reasonable truth theory and find out that
the claims are false.

> If I
> review the manual tests and find that I have met those requirements too,
> then, personal taste aside, I am welcome to put the badge on my page.

No, you are not, since your "manual tests" give wrong results.

> Are you suggesting that the standards are false?

No, a standard is by definition neither false nor true. It is a norm.
A claim about conformance to a standard is true or false.

> If any one of us wants
> to "tell" prospective clients that we are capable of creating accessible
> webpages, what quicker way is there than to make our own pages accessible
> and demonstrate that with the WCAG badge.

To make your pages accessible and demonstrate it with actual
demonstrations involving people and modes of use for which accessibility
is essential.

Besides, now you _are_ writing about the WCAG badge as a seal of
accessibility, something that you strongly denied first. How could a seal
that you give yourself, after convincing yourself of the adequacy of the
automated test and the correctness of _your_ evaluations of the "manual
tests", prove anything? You are looking for pseudo-objectivity.

> Another option would be to explain how you have
> incorporated accessibility features into your page but again, that might
> take a lot of reading.

And surely pointless, if embedded into the pages themselves. Such
information should not be given to users. If you wish to convince
potential clients, explain things to them. And it'll be relatively
irrelevant _how_ you have incorporated accessibility features.

> If you really don't agree with the standards as they
> are right now,

The so-called standards cover some aspects of accessibility, mostly in a
correct way. Anyone who understands what accessibility is realizes that
standards _cannot_ cover but a limited scope of accessibility.

> you could state why they don't meet the true needs for
> accessibility but can you prove that or demonstrate that?

Why would I need to do that?

> Again, a
> long-winded explanation may be used but do you want to force your
> prospective clients to read your treatise?

Yeah, it would be pointless to give them real information, wouldn't it?

If they ask for WCAG 1.0 compliance, give them a compliance report,
including a neutral person's or organization's evaluation of the "manual
checks". Ditto for 508.

If they ask for accessibility, demonstrate what functionality your pages
have for people with disabilities. For example, make a speech browser read
your page for them. You could also ask what types of accessibility are
relevant to their potential users.

--
Jukka "Yucca" Korpela, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/


----
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or view list archives,
visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/