W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > October to December 2001

Consensus on "testable" + Proposition for "objective"

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <GV@TRACE.WISC.EDU>
Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2001 05:46:49 -0600
To: "GLWAI Guidelines WG \(GL - WAI Guidelines WG\)" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <001301c16aa6$8c648d80$066fa8c0@750>
Hi Jim

The consensus is Human testing.    Automatic is of course acceptable and
great where possible -- just not required.

Gregg


PS  - My definition of objective is that 8 or 9 out of 10 people (not
experts) who understand the rule (and have read the techniques document
which explains it) would come up with the same judgment.
I would like to go for 9 of 10.  Will see how well we do.
[NOTE: this definition of objective has NOT been proposed for consensus
so I have no idea if there is consensus on this definition or not]

What the heck.  This can be a posting.  People's thoughts on
'objective'?

Gregg



Behalf Of Jim Ley
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2001 6:11 PM
To: GLWAI Guidelines WG (GL - WAI Guidelines WG)
Subject: Re: Consensus statement -- minimum set

 "Gregg Vanderheiden" <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
> At the meeting today we confirmed that a consensus statement that was
> missed in our current listing was.
>
>
> C-9  The minimum set for conformance would be composed only of
normative
> items (since they are the only ones testable).

What is the consensus definition of testability? - Automatic? Human? and
what confidence in the test is acceptable?

Jim.
Received on Sunday, 11 November 2001 18:49:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:16 GMT