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

Re: MobileOK Tests (was [agenda] Agenda for BPWG Call 2008-02-07)

From: Paul Walsh <paul@segala.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2008 16:42:27 +0000
Message-Id: <6FA84C40-58B7-48DC-A6D2-1289C80F4CDB@segala.com>
Cc: achuter.technosite@yahoo.com, "MWI BPWG Public" <public-bpwg@w3.org>
To: Sean Owen <srowen@google.com>


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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:08:55 UTC