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
possible.

Cheers,

Tom

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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 7 May 2009 14:32:02 GMT