Hi, cstrobbe wrote: > If we turn around our approach and map primarily to techniques/failures > instead of success criteria, do we also need to revisit the naming > convention? The resulting test suit would be very useful for developers > looking for examples of techniques/failures, but as a benchmark for > ERT, wouldn't it suffer from the lack of a mapping to success criteria? Just for the sake of completeness, the tests would still map to the success criteria via the techniques. Anyway, thanks for explaining the TCDL approach. >>> if we care about the relationship between technique(s) and >>> location(s), why not put 'techniques' inside 'location'; if we don't >>> care, why not put 'techniques' outside 'locations' and avoid >>> suggesting a relationship between a specific location and a specific >>> technique? Let's take a clear stance, not something in between. >> >> Agreed. I for my part care... ;) > > Great. > Any other comments? Yes. If the sample is a good implementation of the technique, the location element becomes meaning less. 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, 19 October 2006 09:23:07 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:18:33 GMT