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

Re: Location of 'techniques' in TCDL

From: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 11:22:51 +0200
Message-ID: <453743EB.3020603@w3.org>
To: cstrobbe <Christophe.Strobbe@esat.kuleuven.be>
Cc: public-wai-ert-tsdtf@w3.org


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.


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 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:06:00 UTC