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

RE: validity levels

From: Paul Walsh, Segala <paulwalsh@segala.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 18:32:40 +0100
To: "'Carlos Iglesias'" <carlos.iglesias@fundacionctic.org>, "'Charles McCathieNevile'" <chaals@opera.com>, "'Johannes Koch'" <johannes.koch@fit.fraunhofer.de>, "'ERT group'" <public-wai-ert@w3.org>
Message-Id: <20061023173233.31418266D6559@postie1.hosting365.ie>

-----Original Message-----
From: public-wai-ert-request@w3.org [mailto:public-wai-ert- 

[snip]


Obviously the validity of the test result is a key part of EARL reports, and
I don't like the idea of "forcing" tools to understand EARL extensions
(validity subclasses) to be EARL-compatible.


[PW] Perhaps not, but I'd love to force tools to use correct terminology
that protects users from themselves.  

Warnings (in tools) shouldn't exist as they're pretty meaningless to
experienced testers and only give inexperienced 'users' the wrong impression
about the state of results. It's not a bad idea for EARL to support it as a
means of bookmarking stuff.

Tools that give warnings and hence give users the wrong impression about the
compliance of a Web site, are a large part of the problem of inaccessible
sites claiming accessibility compliance. An extreme example is the overuse
of Bobby to demonstrate compliance with Triple-A. Only the seriously
inexperienced would do this. But it happens a lot, allowing Watchfire to
have healthy Christmas parties. 

Paul
Received on Monday, 23 October 2006 17:32:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:18:27 GMT