W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2005

RE: [TECHS] Object tag test files.

From: David MacDonald <befree@magma.ca>
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 13:57:18 -0400
Message-Id: <200504071757.j37HvJks026132@mail2.magma.ca>
To: "'Joe Clark'" <joeclark@joeclark.org>
Cc: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>


Joe writes:

>>Do you really mean test *suites*? Because we have those.
<http://www.student.oulu.fi/~sairwas/object-test/>

I am reviewing the test files from Chris's suite (U of T), his are in a
consistent format with all other HTML tests, so I think we should stick with
Chris' tests.

> In general I have a problem with tests that are designed to pass a certain
> accessibility principle but are inaccessible in other respects.

>>Such as? No captions on multimedia? What?

Many difference ways depending on the test. I understand that they are very
granular, looking only at one aspect of accessibility for each test, but I
get nervous about a webmaster looking at an inaccessible file that indicates
a pass according to one aspect of accessibility, but is inaccessible. 

For, example 80-3 has a python clock object. The alternate content in a
clock image. There is not alternate text, but it is listed as a passing
test.

> Can we not create passing test files that are WCAG compliant in other 
> respects.

Do you refer to using object and embed in valid HTML?
<http://joeclark.org/access/captioning/bpoc/embed-object.html> 

No I was not referring to the embed/object debate, my task is to go over the
current object tests, not to evaluate the validity of using the embed as an
alternative to object.

Cheers
David

-- 

     Joe Clark | joeclark@joeclark.org
     Accessibility <http://joeclark.org/access/>
       --This.
       --What's wrong with top-posting?
Received on Thursday, 7 April 2005 17:57:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 23:39:36 UTC