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

Re: Confidence Claims - more discussion

From: Nick Kew <nick@webthing.com>
Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2005 15:01:09 +0100
Message-ID: <429F1125.40804@webthing.com>
To: public-wai-ert@w3.org

Chris Ridpath wrote:
> 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.

Chris, we seem to have quite a high degree of unanimity amongst
tool implementors:-)

>> 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.

Well, yes.  But in effect, that's just a detailed statement of the
tool's capabilities.  This tool tests ALT attributes for every IMG;
therefore every IMG that isn't reported has passed that test.
It's no more than a static document.

Nick Kew
Received on Thursday, 2 June 2005 13:59:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:55:52 UTC