RE: Tests more restrictive than BPs

I think this is a tricky question. And therefore a good one.

The approach in mobileOK Basic was to say that things that were not
mentioned, weren't mentioned and aren't in scope. Things that are
elaborations of what BP says seem fair game.

So specifically wrt ACCESS_KEYS it seems fair enough, to me, to say look
for numeric keys on the basis that other access keys are naff all use
when you have a 10 key pad. Equally of course, in the general case you'd
want to know that the User Agent supports access keys, but that is a
different question.

Hope that helps
Jo


> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-bpwg-pro-request@w3.org [mailto:public-bpwg-pro-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Alan Chuter
> Sent: 20 February 2008 08:40
> To: public-bpwg-pro@w3.org
> Subject: Tests more restrictive than BPs
> 
> 
> I think that we need to clarify whether we intend to test compliance
> with the BPs or do something new. This is something that should be
> made clear before going further writing the tests.
> 
> Are people who have implemented the MWBPs supposed to be able to use
> these tests to check what they have done, or is this something new?
> 
> >From what's been said before, I get the impression that the tests,
> Basic and Pro, are intended to cover gaps in the BPs. For example
> (chosen only because its the first example I have at hand), under
> ACCESS_KEYS, "Should this Pro test go further than BP and encourage
> the use of numeric access keys?"
> 
> If we do that, then people will have a double workload as they will
> have to study both documents (perhaps three if Basic is kept separate)
> and figure out what they have to do, which I think is asking too much.
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Alan Chuter,
> Senior Web Accessibility Consultant, Technosite (www.technosite.es)
> Researcher, Inredis Project (www.inredis.es/)
> Email: achuter@technosite.es
> Alternative email: achuter.technosite@yahoo.com
> Blogs: www.blogger.com/profile/09119760634682340619

Received on Wednesday, 20 February 2008 09:01:45 UTC