- From: Paul Walsh <paul@segala.com>
- Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2008 16:42:27 +0000
- To: Sean Owen <srowen@google.com>
- Cc: achuter.technosite@yahoo.com, "MWI BPWG Public" <public-bpwg@w3.org>
On 8 Feb 2008, at 16:26, Sean Owen wrote: > > On Feb 8, 2008 7:29 AM, Alan Chuter <achuter@technosite.es> wrote: >> * Checker-friendly >> * Human testable >> * Not testable >> >> This may seem obvious but it didn't seem to be so the other day. The >> first two together can still produce a useful label, while the third >> type are useful even if they can't be tested. what is unfortunate is >> that there has been an implicit prioritising of the BPs on the basis >> of their suitability for the checker which it's perhaps time to >> examine again before doing the same on the basis of human >> testability. I agree. It was originally agreed that the mobileOK basic would be made up of tests which were relatively easy to comply with. Whether these were machine-testable or not, was not relevant. However, further down the line, this changed for some very strange reasons. We now have mobileOK basic which is machine-testable - even if they aren't necessarily easy to comply with. > > You're absolutely right, some will never be testable, and that's OK. I > think the appendix at the end of mobileOK Basic lists this out too in > a different way. > > Yes, we put everything that could be machine-testable into Basic, > because it is machine-testable, and I also think that's entirely fine. > You could also try to prioritize BPs from most important to least > important, and pick some of the most important ones for Basic, whether > or not they were machine-testable. That seems like the first, most > natural approach. > > But then we would have ended up with two test suites that aren't of > much use to all but a handful of people on the planet, since they > would need a certified mobileOK evaluator to test. So, Basic could > have been the important tests that are also machine-testable, since > there is such an overwhelming practical utility to providing an > automated tool. But then there were complaints that it was "too easy." > So, everything that's possibly machine-testable was put in. > "since they would need a certified mobileOK evaluator to test" What do you mean by this? > mobileOK Pro would just add everything else that can be tested about > the BPs. I think this ends up being a very practical and sensible > approach. Thanks Paul > > ---- Paul Walsh Segala, CEO Web site http://segala.com Blog http://paulfwalsh.com/blog Twitter http://twitter.com/PaulWalsh Mobile +44 (0)7738 758 848
Received on Friday, 8 February 2008 16:42:50 UTC