W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wai-ert-tsdtf@w3.org > February 2009

Re: TCDL bug? (was Re: Database design)

From: cstrobbe <Christophe.Strobbe@esat.kuleuven.be>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 23:11:57 +0100
Message-ID: <1234476717.49949ead9eeb3@webmail2.kuleuven.be>
To: TSD TF <public-wai-ert-tsdtf@w3.org>
Cc: Christophe Strobbe <christophe.strobbe@esat.kuleuven.be>

Hi Shadi, All,

Quoting Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>:
> 
> Hi Christophe, all,
> 
> Christophe Strobbe wrote:
> > 
> > At 17:46 12/02/2009, Shadi Abou-Zahra wrote:
> >>
> >> Christophe Strobbe wrote:
> >>> At 13:53 12/02/2009, Shadi Abou-Zahra wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Christophe Strobbe wrote:
> >>>>> At 21:06 11/02/2009, Shadi Abou-Zahra wrote:
> >>>>>> Ref:
> <http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/tests/WebInterface/Mockups/tables>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> <snip />
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Tests table:
> >>>>> Does the current design support test samples that reference
> more 
> >>>>> than one technique? If the Tech column allows only a single 
> >>>>> technique ID (as opposed to a list), can the Test ID column be
> 
> >>>>> unique? We may need a key that is based on Test ID + Tech ID.
> >>>>
> >>>> No. The idea is that each test sample maps to exactly one
> technique. 
> >>>> Is this not the case?
> >>> Sometimes a success criterion can be met by a single technique,
> but 
> >>> sometimes one needs a combination of techniques.
> >>> I tried to dig up earlier discussions on this subject and found:
> >>> * 
> >>>
>
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert-tsdtf/2006Oct/0072.html>
> 
> >>> (31 October 2006),
> >>>   which also uses the above rationale, and
> >>> * 
> >>>
>
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert-tsdtf/2006Nov/0047.html>
> 
> >>> (30 November 2006),
> >>>   in a thread about choosing a data model to implement the above
> in 
> >>> the TCDL 2.0 schema.
> >>> I hope I haven't missed anything.
> >>
> >> Yes, a technique can map to several success criteria and a success
> 
> >> criteria could be addressed by more than one technique. But this
> is 
> >> not the point here. Am I missing something?
> >>
> >> Each *test sample* maps to exactly one *technique*. Correct?
> > 
> > The "expectedResult" contains a pass or fail statement that is
> based on 
> > whether the test file(s) pass(es) or fail(s) the success criterion
> > identified by the "rule" element. If a combination of techniques is
> > required to pass a success criterion, test samples that pass such a
> > success criterion will also reference more than one technique.
> 
> Oh boy! Hope we are not identifying such a bug at this stage...
> How can a *test file* pass or fail a success criterion? The expected
> result should be that of the test procedure of a technique. These in
> turn map to one or more success criteria each.

I don't think there is a bug.
The test procedure of a technique or failure only tells you if the
technique or failure applies. If the test procedure of a technique
results in "fail", that only means that the technique has not been used,
or not been used properly, but not necessarily that the test file fails
the succes criterion: the test file may meet the success criterion in
another way. This is how the test procedures were intended by the WCAG
Working Group.
Also, we would still need an expectedResult for test files that don't
map to an existing technique or failure.

This is also the way we used success criteria and techniques in
BenToWeb. (We had to, because the current type of techniques didn't
exist when we created the first test suite.)

I hope this solves the issue.

Best regards,

Christophe

> 
> Regards,
>    Shadi
> 
> -- 
> Shadi Abou-Zahra - http://www.w3.org/People/shadi/ |
>    WAI International Program Office Activity Lead   |
>   W3C Evaluation & Repair Tools Working Group Chair |
> 


-- 
Christophe Strobbe
K.U.Leuven - Departement of Electrical Engineering - Research Group on 
Document Architectures
Kasteelpark Arenberg 10 - 3001 Leuven-Heverlee - BELGIUM
tel: +32 16 32 85 51
http://www.docarch.be/ 

Disclaimer: http://www.kuleuven.be/cwis/email_disclaimer.htm
Received on Thursday, 12 February 2009 22:12:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 12 February 2009 22:12:47 GMT