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

Re: MobileOK Tests, Basic and Pro

From: Alan Chuter <achuter@technosite.es>
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 13:21:07 +0100
Message-ID: <79cab0900802110421h263905b2u3416d59ab2e67e0e@mail.gmail.com>
To: "MWI BPWG Public" <public-bpwg@w3.org>

On 11/02/2008, Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi> wrote:
> I'm fine with some tests being excluded as "non testable", however think
> we need to be clear that there are more ways of testing than just the
> visual assessment of the output from a site.
> For example, TESTING is in principle verifiable by doing a simple audit
> of the development process and verifying that test records show that the
> process was followed. I'm personally not in favour of specifying this
> audit type of approach.
> Jo

I think that we should be clear from the outset whether this is about
black box or white box testing. I had assumed it would be black box
and that we simply require evaluation of what is produced. I don't
think it's practical to expect that developers even have a formal
development process and test records, which are not required by the
BPs. Even if records are available, who can vouch for their veracity?
There have been calls for process to be included in the evaluation
process and there is a label here in Spain that includes it. But
generally certification rests on the product as it is delivered. In an
ideal world I would be in favour of auditing the development process
but in practice I also am not in favour of it.

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 Monday, 11 February 2008 12:21:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:09:51 UTC