- From: Patrick Lauke <P.H.Lauke@salford.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 11:48:50 -0000
- To: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
- Cc: <gez.lemon@gmail.com>
> Julian Scarlett > http://juicystudio.com/article/invalid-content-accessibility-validators.php > (Haven't yet tried it with Gez's tests in the > above link.) Just gave TAW3 standalone version a whirl on that page. It flagged up 2 priority 3 errors for 5.6 Provide abbreviations for header labels relating to <th scope="col">Structural Markup</th> <th scope="col">Accessible Tables</th> because the headers are longer than 15 characters - fair enough, though a bit arbitrary...I would have said they should have been marked as requiring human testing. Also, 2 priority 3 errors for 10.4 Until user agents handlge empty controls correctly, include default, place-holding characters in edit boxes and text areas. relating to the fact that the two selects <select id="town" name="town"> and <select id="sectown" name="sectown"> don't have at least one OPTION selected. Now that's a novel interpretation of 10.4...particularly since the wording of the checkpoint itself only mentions edit boxes and text areas, not selects...so this is a false negative in my opinion. Apart from that, lots of priority 1 and 2 issues marked for human review (29 and 50, respectively). Still, considering the tool is completely free, it's not too bad...with the usual caveat that automated testing is not a panacea and that one needs to be able to perform the manual checks as well as making damned sure that there are no false positives or false negatives. Patrick ________________________________ Patrick H. Lauke Web Editor / University of Salford http://www.salford.ac.uk ________________________________ Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ ________________________________
Received on Monday, 21 November 2005 11:50:11 UTC