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

[Should we shift this thread to the mOKPro list? X=posted for now, please  
follow up there only unless there is some special reason to bother  
everyone else too]

On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 12:39:53 +0100, 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.

Actually, I am in favour of giving some guidance along these lines. Like  
the discussion about things that help accessibility but don't give actual  
conformance, this should be clearly marked.

But I agree with Jo - testing can be done in many ways. I am sick of  
people saying you can't test language simplicity - there are several known  
machine tests and simple semi-automated tests that can be done reliably.  
In some cases what is missing is the imagination to produce them or the  
effort to discover that they are already available. I think we should be  
very wary of claiming that something is untestable, and instead just say  
where we haven't agreed on a decent test...

cheers

Chaals

-- 
Charles McCathieNevile  Opera Software, Standards Group
     je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk
http://my.opera.com/chaals   Try Opera 9.5: http://snapshot.opera.com

Received on Friday, 22 February 2008 12:21:25 UTC