- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 05:50:27 -0500 (EST)
- To: Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng <hgs@dmu.ac.uk>
- cc: Dave J Woolley <david.woolley@bts.co.uk>, "'www-amaya@w3.org'" <www-amaya@w3.org>
On Thu, 4 Jan 2001, Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng wrote: On Thu, 4 Jan 2001, Charles McCathieNevile wrote: > authors to fix things that need fixing. (As well as having a way of recording > information if a Human tested something difficult to test by machine, that > persists when a new tool is used to work on the content.) ...This last bit I'm not sure about. If new work is done on the content, then you have to re-test accessibility again in case it has been broken. Or is this for regression testing, so that the site changes can be compared to previous tests? The idea is that a tool knows what has been done to a page, so it knows what bits are worth re-testing and what aren't. (part of such a system would be having a way of checking to see what had been hand-edited in the meantime, and does need retesting when a smarter tool picks it up). Charles
Received on Thursday, 4 January 2001 05:52:28 UTC