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

Re: Test files review

From: Lisa Seeman <lisa@ubaccess.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 13:24:48 +0200
To: Michael Cooper <michaelc@watchfire.com>, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Message-id: <02c801c5141a$275f2820$3548003e@IBMA4E63BE0B9E>

Michael said I could just do this on the phone if I did not manage to writ
it up in time - as a compromise I am just sending on my notes before the
meeting for the test files.
I hope it is not to confusing, I will go over them...

General comment on all file, The test cases for a pass are not so great from
a QA  perspective. Clearly a empty page will pass. We need to check that the
correct use of the mark up passes, not just an empty body tag or code that
does not achieve the ends of the fail test case

Test 1  B element must not be used.
"<bold>really</bold>" -lisa: this is invalid in the first place
it claims that "This test is not required for conformance : -  lisa:but
Structures and relationships within the content can be programmatically
Emphasis can be programmatically determined.
Does <b> denote emphasis? is that clear?
Also I think <b> has been depreciated, which I do not think is a violation,
but should it be?
most relevant is HTML technique 5.1: Use CSS instead of presentational

Test 2 BASEFONT must not be used.
This is quoted as P1 under 3.1 -Ensure that the meaning of content can be
I do not see any connection. My take is that this should be the same as  the
<b> test -that was  for discussion only

Test 3, BLINK element should not be used.
Are we going to have a test for frequency for blink? Then this test will be
incorrect. We will not need to get rid of blink as a P1 but confirm that the
size and frequency of a blinking element is incorrect.
There is the whole depreciation issues and inline format issues as above

Test 4 BLOCKQUOTE must not be used for indentation.
Comments as for basefont above - is it about the meaning as defined by the
success criteria? (Although in another since it could be about meaning...)
It is about using tags as intended, perhaps as specified, or it could be
about exposing structure (and relationships within the content can be
programmatically determined)
However I disagree with the test case which triggers because the  cite
attribute was not filled in. Although I would like to see the cite attribute
filled in, that should be a separate test - is the cite attribute filled in
for quotes. I do not know what level of priority it is if at all.
However this is meant to test that the blockquote content itself is  in fact
a quote, which it may be despite the missing cite.

Test Use the BLOCKQUOTE element to mark up block quotations.

here we are using the right guideline, Guideline: 1.3 - Ensure that
information, functionality, and structure are separable from presentation.

Yet is it true that text inside a quotation mark such as " or ' can also be
programmatically determined, even though it is more difficult an algorithm
(shortened forms of words and apostrophes need to be excluded)
the test file seemed wrong , why does text in a body mean it is a quote -was
this a quote? or just a story?

Test : FONT must not be used.

Interesting -why is this still the case?
It conforms to html 3 and we are not excluding that.
Font has no semantic info , but neither does span so it is not realy helping
the "Ensure that information, functionality, and structure are separable
from presentation. "
(until start start associating class with a role -which I believe will come)
Instinctively I agree, but I can not place it.

the technique was irrelevant:  Short text alternatives for img elements

Test : Abbreviations must be marked with ABBR element.

the general comment about test files holds true.

Of course there are many and varied ways of providing an expansion of an
acronym. The Abbr tag is just one, so failing this test does not mean you
have failed the checkpoint,.

Acronyms must be marked with ACRONYM element.

Same comment as above, except is the test an acronym or abbreviation? can it
be both?

Test :  Words not in the document's primary language must be identified.

Side question -why do we not ask to translate it too -that would be very
Now let us say we have two languages in a page with a different alphabet -
say we are using Hebrew (surprise surprise)
As the quote is then clearly in a different range, and Hebrew and Yiddish
are the only languages using this alphabet, and as the switch from Yiddish
to Hebrew is unlikely to be either easy to determine, or an accessibility
issue, why do we need this -In other words, the meaning is still
programmatically identifiable

However the same is not true for a Hebrew without vocalization, or , in some
case a Hebrew with English inside it.
however -could you just identify a Lang for an Unicode range, and then all
will be well.

Side note: from a programmatic perspective, could the je ne sais quoi not be
easly identified as French without the Lang tag?

Test: Provide a reference to a glossary.
Well I love this space, but there is not much to comment on yet.

This could also be a useful alternate to multiple and less relevant ABBR

--- Signature ---

Michael Cooper
Accessibility Product Manager, Watchfire
1 Hines Rd Suite 200, Kanata, ON  K2K 3C7  Canada
Tel: +1 (613) 599-3888 x4019
Fax: +1 (613) 599-4661
Email: michaelc@watchfire.com
Web: http://www.watchfire.com/
Received on Wednesday, 16 February 2005 11:25:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:35 GMT