- From: Miguel Garcia <miguel.garcia@fundacionctic.org>
- Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 17:55:38 +0100
- To: <public-bpwg-access@w3.org>
Hello, I didn't send the previous mail although it states it was sent in my behalf. 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 complete[2]. >> >>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 tears... >>http://www.w9statistics.org >>
Received on Monday, 14 January 2008 16:55:28 UTC