W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-au@w3.org > April to June 2001

Re: Wombat Subtext 4.1, 4.2

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 19:04:29 -0400 (EDT)
To: Jan Richards <jan.richards@utoronto.ca>
cc: "w3c-wai-au@w3.org" <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0106121901230.4146-100000@tux.w3.org>
The minimum would be to ask the author to perform manual checks for each
WCAG item (at the various priority levels). I agree that that would result
in a horrid tool, but it would do the job better than many things people are
using at the moment. One optimisation would be to customise the checks.
Another is to automate parts of them. A good tool will do some of both and
more besides. And the question of what part of the workflow  this happens at
is orthogonal - if it happens the tool can pass, if it doesn't the tool
fails, and if it has to be configured to happen then the tool can only pass
in that configuration.

Cheers

Charles

On Fri, 8 Jun 2001, Jan Richards wrote:

  I think we would all agree that it is not sufficient to put the full
  WCAG guideines and relevant techniques into the tool's help section for
  the author's reference.
CMN:Yep.
JR  But, at the same time, we don't want to require that everything be
  automated, since some of the WCAG guidelines are not reasonably machine
  checkable at the current time.

  In your message, you mention "prompting for everything" should be
  sufficient to meet the checkpoint. Do you mean asking the user to
  perform a number of specific manual checks?
Received on Tuesday, 12 June 2001 19:06:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 22 September 2008 15:53:00 GMT