At 10:31 AM -0700 2001/10/25, Cynthia Shelly wrote: >Interesting... >Could you elaborate on why you think testability is an academic >criteria? > >I'd say it's just the oposite. If I can test that I've done the thing, >the thing is practical. If I can't, the thing is academic. > >If the thing is academic, we can have long philosophical discussions >about whether or not I've done it (I'll bring the red wine <grin/>). On >the other hand, if the thing is practical, each of us can apply the same >test, and agree that I've done it. > > >Separate point, >I don't anyone has said "difficult to test" is the criteria for not >being included in the minimum set. I think we've said "impossible to >test". That's a big difference. Speaking of "testing" do we mean automated tests, or tests by the author, or user tests, or what? I think we are using the very vague word "test" in a sloppy manner, and at the very least the term when used should be qualified with an adjective. Otherwise our discussions will become even more muddled. I think there are practical matters which cannot be "tested" but in which a "judgment call" must be made. As a trivial example, "appropriate alt text." (We all know that "existence of alt text" is easily testable, but applicability is not a "test", it is a "judgment call.") The suitability of a given judgment call can be tested in practice by suitable user testing but can't really be checked in any other appropriate manner. --Kynn -- Kynn Bartlett <kynn@reef.com> Technical Developer Liaison Reef North America Accessibility - W3C - Integrator Network ________________________________________ BUSINESS IS DYNAMIC. TAKE CONTROL. ________________________________________ http://www.reef.comReceived on Friday, 26 October 2001 02:49:20 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:16 GMT