W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-css-testsuite@w3.org > August 2014

Re: CSS Masking: multiple imprecise tests fail to mention "no red"

From: Gérard Talbot <css21testsuite@gtalbot.org>
Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2014 19:08:01 -0400
To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Cc: public-css-testsuite@w3.org, Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>
Message-ID: <0d415c0dd6ce82fb6787ca514f8c69cf@gtalbot.org>
Le 2014-08-24 18:01, Chris Lilley a écrit :
> Hello Public-css-testsuite,
> 
> The CSS Masking testsuite has a bunch of tests with imprecise pass
> criteria like
> 
> "The test passes if there is a green box/ellipse/circle/whatever."


Chris,

First of all, "box" is not recommendable as a shape descriptor; in my 
opinion, "box" should not be in any pass-fail-conditions sentence of 
tests. For 99% of ordinary people, a box is a 3 dimensional object that 
has 6 sides. Better shape descriptor for "box" are: square and 
rectangle.

Ellipse and circle are good shape descriptors.

Sometimes, tests need to qualify furthermore the shape descriptors when 
qualifiers are part of the test itself. Examples of qualifiers:
- filled
- narrow | wide
- tall | short
- horizontal | vertical
- upper | lower
- left-hand side | right-hand side
etc..

Sometimes, it's better to not qualify the shape descriptor because other 
modifiers are not part of the test.

Sometimes, mentioning "a blue square" is sufficient; sometimes, it will 
be
necessary for the tester to know if it's a filled blue square or a white
square with a blue border.

Shape descriptors should be furthermore specified depending on the needs
of a test (from general to more specified):
line vs green line vs vertical green line vs short vertical green line
eg: 
http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20110323/html4/border-right-applies-to-002.htm

(from general to more specified)
a square, a black square, a filled black square, a filled black
square on the right, etc.
http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20110323/html4/border-right-color-013.htm

Example
http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20110323/html4/abspos-001.htm
says "This page should have a single green rectangle (...)"
when it would be preferable to say
"Test passes if there is a short green stripe and no red."
and emboldening "no red".


> From looking at the test and the reference, these should be corrected
> to mention no red. I see some test results which are false positives,
> presumably because the pass criteria did not mention no red. Suggest
> 
> "The test passes if there is a green box/ellipse/circle/whatever and
> no red is visible."

I agree that "no red" should be mentioned.

"is visible": we assume that testers (people taking the test harness) 
are not blind, have normal acuity vision, have normal eye viewing 
capabilities. Mentioning a color implies by itself that it can be 
viewed, that such color is inherently visible.

Therefore:

visible
viewable
appearing
present
anywhere
displayed
you can see
( 
http://test.csswg.org/source/compositing-1/mix-blend-mode/mix-blend-mode-blending-with-sibling.html 
)
You should see
(http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20110323/html4/inlines-013.htm)
you can view

are all words and expressions which can be safely removed from all 
tests.

extreme example of unnecessary over-carefulness:
"Test passes if there is a green box visible and there is no red
visible on the page."
http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20110323/html4/clip-101.htm


If one day, we have an aural test suite, then "hear", "listen", "if you 
can hear", etc... types of expressions will also be unneeded, 
unnecessary, not helpful, etc. because we will postulate and presume 
that testers (people taking those tests) will have normal audition 
capabilities, will not have hearing problems, etc.

Gérard
-- 
Web authors' contributions to CSS 2.1 test suite
http://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSection/css21testsuite/web-authors-contributions-css21-testsuite.html
CSS 2.1 Test suite RC6, March 23rd 2011
http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20110323/html4/toc.html
Received on Sunday, 24 August 2014 23:08:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:13:27 UTC