W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wai-ert-tsdtf@w3.org > December 2006

Re: questions/comments on TSDTF test process document

From: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 16:02:49 +0100
Message-ID: <45816799.3060105@w3.org>
To: Tim Boland <frederick.boland@nist.gov>
Cc: public-wai-ert-tsdtf@w3.org

Hi Tim,

Thanks for your comments, please find some response below:

Tim Boland wrote:
> (1) What is an "unambiguous unit"?  Does this mean that the test sample 
> and test procedure are consistent?  If so, wouldn't that point be 
> covered in the point previous?

Basically the test sample should not change the meaning of the test 
procedure in the WCAG 2.0 Techniques document. I will update wording to 
better reflect the intention.


> (2) Should it be stated what the expected output of the test is, exactly 
> how successful accomplishment of the test case satisfies the associated 
> success criterion, the test purpose (if not already stated), and if the 
> expected result is not achieved, what can be done to correct the test 
> case so that it will pass (using testing as a teaching tool)?

I'm not sure I fully understand your point but it seems that this is out 
of scope for the test samples. The actual "test" including the testing 
procedure and other additional information should be specified in the 
WCAG 2.0 Techniques document. As far as I know there is no attempt to 
address "what can be done if the test fails" in the Techniques but the 
"good" test samples may help with that. However, I think it would be 
very tough to maintain such best practices and it is certainly out of 
scope for this task force.


> (3) Should the review process explicitly mention the possibility that 
> the result of a review may be a suggestion to correct the associated 
> technique, or even success criteria.   In other words, if there is a 
> "problem" perceived with a submitted test sample, maybe the associated 
> specification or success criterion/technique is in "error", not 
> necessary the test sample - should this possibility be considered?

Indeed this is an outcome which we want to address. At the same time, we 
want to avoid duplicating the WCAG WG discussions in this task force. I 
will think more about this and try to build something in, probably as an 
outcome of "Step 5".


> (4) Is there a time limit on the review process, and notification of the 
> submitter of the results of the review?

Ideally yes but I think it would be tough to commit to any limits right 
now until the group is up and running. Good point, especially for 
managing contributor expectation.


Regards,
   Shadi


-- 
Shadi Abou-Zahra     Web Accessibility Specialist for Europe |
Chair & Staff Contact for the Evaluation and Repair Tools WG |
World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)           http://www.w3.org/ |
Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI),   http://www.w3.org/WAI/ |
WAI-TIES Project,                http://www.w3.org/WAI/TIES/ |
Evaluation and Repair Tools WG,    http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/ |
2004, Route des Lucioles - 06560,  Sophia-Antipolis - France |
Voice: +33(0)4 92 38 50 64          Fax: +33(0)4 92 38 78 22 |
Received on Thursday, 14 December 2006 15:03:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:18:34 GMT