W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-bpwg-access@w3.org > January 2008

RE: Accessibility document [PROVIDE_DEFAULTS]

From: Miguel Garcia <miguel.garcia@fundacionctic.org>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 17:55:38 +0100
Message-ID: <09700B613C4DD84FA9F2FEA52188281902D58234@ayalga.fundacionctic.org>
To: <public-bpwg-access@w3.org>


I didn't send the previous mail although it states it was sent in my

I'll try to find out what happened.

Sorry for any inconvenience

>>-----Mensaje original-----
>>De: public-bpwg-access-request@w3.org [mailto:public-bpwg-access-
>>request@w3.org] En nombre de Miguel Garcia
>>Enviado el: domingo, 13 de enero de 2008 12:25
>>Para: public-bpwg-access@w3.org
>>Asunto: RE: Accessibility document [PROVIDE_DEFAULTS]
>>I've had a comment regarding the way Page Valet reports WCAG
>>accessibility warnings. My correspondent[1] thinks it should
>>mention any WCAG points that are untested, as this is how some
>>other accessibility tools work and it makes Valet seems less
>>As it stands, Page Valet will generate warnings when it detects an
>>error (or potential error). When it applies a test that is passed
>>it says nothing. When it doesn't apply a test, it says nothing.
>>Now the suggestion is that is should - conceptually - test every point
>>in the WCAG. In cases like #14.1/etc that self-evidently can't be
>>tested by any tool, it should issue a nag message - whatever page
>>is being tested.
>>Now, I have several reasons not to apply this kind of completeness.
>>But maybe I'm missing the wider view.
>>-- GoldED/386 2.42.G0614+
>>I will try to live with love... with dreams... and forever with
Received on Monday, 14 January 2008 16:55:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:09:06 UTC