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

Re: Exploding the myth of automated accessibility checking

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@sidar.org>
Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2005 10:13:08 +0200
To: "Gregg Vanderheiden" <gv@trace.wisc.edu>, w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Cc: "'WAI-GL'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.su8ef6nrw5l938@widsith.lan>

On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 04:44:59 +0200, Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>  
wrote:

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

I don't think that goes far enough. It needs to be clear that some tests  
may not be able to be performed successfully by a computer, and will  
require a human. The current text does nothing to dispel the assumption  
that a computer should be capable of doing all the tests.

cheers

Chaals

> -----Original Message-----

>
> 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
-- 
Charles McCathieNevile                      Fundacion Sidar
charles@sidar.org   +61 409 134 136    http://www.sidar.org
Received on Tuesday, 9 August 2005 08:13:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:39 GMT