W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wai-evaltf@w3.org > April 2012

Re: Mentioning tools

From: Elle <nethermind@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 15:03:10 -0400
Message-ID: <CAJ=fddM=OUmWAtbsXPfdszhhK1fM65DYB_hU05rFV6qYWREn0g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alistair Garrison <alistair.j.garrison@gmail.com>
Cc: Eval TF <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
I believe Detlev mentioned something about his testing tool.  If this is
the case, then yes, I agree.  I wouldn't want any evaluation methodology to
be too prescriptive on this point, as we cannot predict what tools will be
used in the future, only the outcome of the conformance results.


On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 2:09 PM, Alistair Garrison <
alistair.j.garrison@gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear all,
> During our telecon today I believe someone mentioned that "as their tool
> did something in a certain way, would it not be possible for the evaluation
> to be done in the same way" - or at least that is what I processed.
> Shouldn't our focus always be on producing the best evaluation methodology
> for an evaluator, regardless of the impact on our own stuff (tools, quality
> mark, etc...)?
> All the best
> Alistair

If you want to build a ship, don't drum up the people to gather wood,
divide the work, and give orders. Instead, teach them to yearn for the vast
and endless sea.
- Antoine De Saint-Exupéry, The Little Prince
Received on Thursday, 19 April 2012 19:03:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:40:20 UTC