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

Re: WCAG 2.0 effects on EARL

From: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 13:02:09 +0200
Message-ID: <4461C831.8040405@w3.org>
To: Johannes Koch <johannes.koch@fit.fraunhofer.de>, Carlos Iglesias <carlos.iglesias@fundacionctic.org>
Cc: public-wai-ert@w3.org

Hi Carlos, Johannes,

But this is where I think "evidence" (or a different name) may be needed again. In order to check success criterion 1.1.1, we conduct a couple of tests (either positive or negative ones). To record "SC 1.1.1 PASS" (or FAIL), we may want to reference the relevant tests that were carried out. Right?


Johannes Koch wrote:
> Johannes Koch wrote:
>>> So in EARL we need to record whether a test (case) is passSufficient 
>>> or failSufficient for a higher level test (requirement).
> Carlos Iglesias wrote:
>> I don't think so,
>> EARL records Test Results at whatever "level" you're testing (call it
>> success criterion, sufficient techniques, advidsory techniques...), and
>> it shouln't care about the relations between TestCases (This is why we
>> need a Test Description Language)
> O sorry, I thought there should be a way to model a hierarchy of test 
> cases and requirements in EARL. If this should be done outside EARL, we 
> don't need passSufficient and failSufficient in EARL.

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 Wednesday, 10 May 2006 11:02:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:55:54 UTC