W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wai-ert@w3.org > June 2007

RE: MobileOK review

From: Carlos Iglesias <carlos.iglesias@fundacionctic.org>
Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2007 00:17:28 +0200
Message-ID: <09700B613C4DD84FA9F2FEA521882819020C6A1B@ayalga.fundacionctic.org>
To: "Shadi Abou-Zahra" <shadi@w3.org>, <public-wai-ert@w3.org>

 
Hi,

> [...]
> I was also particularly interested in the question on the 
> format of the 
> tests -I think this pseudo-code approach could be useful for WCAG 2.0 
> Techniques too, what do others think?

IMO the pseudo-code approach is really useful, in fact we have been using this approach in our internal methodologies since time ago, and we found it really productive as a complement to the verbose explanations to help our team (several non-techies included) to follow the same conventions and avoid ambiguities.

We also find very helpful to include the applicability condition (when relevant) in the pseudo-code, otherwise some times could be not clear when to produce a N/A output vs. a Pass/Fail one.

E.g. 3.5 DEFAULT_INPUT_MODE

Note that if there is no input or textarea element as the test is currently define it will be a PASS, IMO it should be a N/A and I think there's an important difference.

Additionally we also think this is also a good practice for the shake of completeness in the algorithm, and would like to encourage mOK people (and the WCAG WG if they start to produce pseudo-code, as we think there is currently this level of ambiguity also in some WCAG1 checkpoints) to follow this practice.

I would like to see what others think about this.

Regards,
 CI.

 
--------------------------------------

Carlos Iglesias

CTIC Foundation
Science and Technology Park of Gijón
33203 - Gijón, Asturias, Spain 

phone: +34 984291212
fax: +34 984390612
email: carlos.iglesias@fundacionctic.org
URL: http://www.fundacionctic.org
Received on Friday, 8 June 2007 22:17:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:18:28 GMT