RE: Exploding the myth of automated accessibility checking

I think changing it to "and/or" is reasonable edit. 
 
Gregg

 -- ------------------------------ 
Gregg C Vanderheiden. 


-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf
Of Patrick H. Lauke
Subject: Re: Exploding the myth of automated accessibility checking


Wendy Chisholm wrote:

> The 30 June 2005 Working Draft of WCAG 2.0 says, "The Working Group 
> believes that all success criteria should be testable. Tests can be 
> done by computer programs or by people who understand this document.

I'd say the core problem here lies with the "or" in that last sentence. 
It implies that *all* tests can be done by *either* a computer *or* a
person. You would probably want something more along the lines of: 
"Carrying out the entire series of tests will require people who understand
this document. However, some (or even "a small subset of") tests can be
automated / performed by computer programs."

--
Patrick H. Lauke
__________________________________________________________
re.dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re-
+ dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk
http://redux.deviantart.com
__________________________________________________________
Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force
http://webstandards.org/
__________________________________________________________