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

RE: What is a subject of a test?

From: Carlos Iglesias <carlos.iglesias@fundacionctic.org>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 12:54:17 +0200
Message-ID: <09700B613C4DD84FA9F2FEA521882819472398@ayalga.fundacionctic.org>
To: <shadi@w3.org>, <public-wai-ert@w3.org>

Hi all,

Mmmm... It looks like the mailing list is being quite active today :)

Let's see...

> > Would it be necessary for the EARL spec to clearly define how to do
> that 
> > in order to make interchange of EARL reports possible?
> Yes, I think you are absolutely right that we need to clearly 
> define this situation in the specification.

Well, in deed I think there we need to clearly define several things in
the specification (as was pointed by Grabriele at point 2 in
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert/2005Feb/0034.html) in
order to avoid inconsistence between reports from different tools

Another example of ambiguity in the specification:

Instances of ValidityLevel

    * cannotTell
    * fail
    * notApplicable
    * notTested
    * pass

When to use each one?

Let's continue with this example:

Checkpoint 5.3: Do not use tables for layout unless the table makes
sense when linearized. Otherwise, if the table does not make sense,
provide an alternative equivalent (which may be a  linearized version).
[Priority 2]

If the tool is checking a web page and it detects that it has no tables,
which will be the validity level for this ckeckpoint?

A- notApplicable

>From the tool's point of view there are no tables and the checkpoint is
not applicable because there is nothing to check

B- pass

But an accessibility expert could think "it's not using tables, so it
passes the chekpoint"

C- others


What I mean is that if we don't have a clear specification then it will
be open to personal interpretation.

Any thoughts?


Received on Thursday, 31 March 2005 10:54:56 UTC

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