W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wai-eo-badtf@w3.org > May 2009

Re: Report format

From: Thomas Jewett <jewett@csulb.edu>
Date: Thu, 07 May 2009 07:31:23 -0700
To: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
Cc: public-wai-eo-badtf@w3.org
Message-ID: <web-18153735@romulus.csulb.edu>
Sounds good -- I think that assumptions will fit
well in the introductory part of the report, with
SCs/failures/techniques as the main section.

One reason that I separated out Failures is that
they have their own checks, which are essentially
the reverse of the Techniques checks although
less specific. I think this is a bit of overkill
in the document, but again I'm trying to illustrate
use of the standard (as written) to the max extent



On Thu, 07 May 2009 09:00:37 +0200
  Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org> wrote:
> Hi Tom,
> I'm not sure that it is only the Failures that we want 
>to list to show that a Success Criterion has not been 
>met. We can also show Techniques that have not been 
>implemented, so that conformance with the Success 
>Criterion could not be demonstrated. Having said that, it 
>seems that we we'll need to clearly state the assumptions 
>under which the evaluation took place (including 
>mentioning Accessibility Supported Technologies).
> I'll work on a draft format based on your input below 
>for discussion.
> Thanks,
>   Shadi
> ...
Received on Thursday, 7 May 2009 14:32:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:58:51 UTC