W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org > June 2002

Re: Devising a schema for accessibility testing

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2002 18:06:48 -0400 (EDT)
To: Nick Kew <nick@webthing.com>
cc: <w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0206301804260.13528-100000@tux.w3.org>

On Sun, 30 Jun 2002, Nick Kew wrote:

  On Sun, 30 Jun 2002, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:

  > Well, I like it, but a couple of comments:
  > I would try to define the test as being about a particular URI that is
  > expected to be used as an earl result. But where this is only one of several
  > tests that you apply to meet another requirement, I would give it its own
  > URI, and then I think we need to sort the piece that says "results X and
  > Y and Z imply result Q" for earl and re-use here. (I know that they don't
  > seem to be strictly inside EARL, but they seem really important to many use
  > cases.  On the other hand, I think there is some low-level RDF that does this
  > - or is it OWL stuff?)

  Hmmm ... I have another consideration, which is that I want my users to
  generate this test definition language via a few simple CGI forms.
  I need something that will work with a very simple frontend.

ep, I agree. I think this will take us some time to get right. And this is an
important use case. (Build use cases, and work out what they require, Then
we work out for real what the format looks like and whether it meets our

  > How do you envisage adding tests that apply to free text? xml:PCDATA might be
  > an option I guess. likewise for mime types...

  Valet doesn't do that.  Some Valet tests do analyse text nodes, but they
  act on an element and look at the text it contains.  For example, a
  <th> with no abbr attribute and too many words, will generate a
  warning suggesting an abbreviation.

Right, but to make this valuable (to anyone other than you ;-) It needs to be
generalisable beyond Valet. See your next response ;-)



  > How do you identify tests that are done by a person, and integrated via an
  > interview process? I think that I can see this in your schema, but examples
  > would make it clear that it is possible.

  Good point.  My schema is intended to be general-purpose, but I hadn't
  considered that particular issue.  If I got the general-purpose right,
  it should presumably work.

  > There were some other proerties in earl that we thought were more related to
  > test description, such as earl:excludes and earl:operatorInstructions. Do you
  > envisage moving those into a tesst description language?

  Yes, I think we can & probably should introduce this and other
  EARL vocabulary.  But not tonight!


  > Defining the code to be used directly is sub-optimal - this is how IE makes
  > object unworkable in the long term, by specifying a particular bit of code as
  > part of the requirements for running the test. Being able to identify the
  > test, and then identify a bit of code in one app seperately means that we can
  > make pluggable testing architecture without having to pretend that some tool
  > is something else.

  That's what I'm doing ... the use of <valet:code> was just 'cos I
  didn't think of anything more imaginative to call it.

  > Anyway, this seems like a good start. Should we pick a few namespaces and try
  > to take it further?

  Sounds good to me.

Charles McCathieNevile    http://www.w3.org/People/Charles  phone: +61 409 134 136
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative     http://www.w3.org/WAI  fax: +33 4 92 38 78 22
Location: 21 Mitchell street FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011, Australia
(or W3C INRIA, Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France)
Received on Sunday, 30 June 2002 18:07:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:01:34 UTC