W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wai-ert@w3.org > June 2005

Re: Confidence Claims - more discussion

From: Chris Ridpath <chris.ridpath@utoronto.ca>
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 09:44:15 -0400
Message-ID: <340201c56779$2acdeed0$e29a968e@WILDDOG>
To: <shadi@w3.org>, "Nick Kew" <nick@webthing.com>
Cc: <public-wai-ert@w3.org>

Shadi wrote:
> IMHO, it is bad practice not to record which tests passed.
>
Our checker records only those tests that have failed or tests that we can't 
tell and may have failed. If we recorded all the tests that were run then 
the report would be huge. I don't see anything wrong with recording tests 
that have passed but I think there's a simpler way of doing this.

> I think this is useful "proof" of what has been tested, how, and why the 
> tool claims certain assertions.
>
Yes, I agree. The conformance statement should state which tests have been 
run and if all the tests pass then the content conforms. For example the 
conformance claim could state that test #1 was run (all images have an alt 
attribute) and if the test passes then the content conforms.

I don't think it's necessary to state that the first image has an alt 
attribute and the second image has an alt attribute and the third image etc. 
You just need to state that all images have an alt attribute.

Cheers,
Chris
Received on Thursday, 2 June 2005 13:44:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:18:25 GMT