- From: Steve Lee <stevelee@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2019 09:33:20 +0000
- To: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>, "Delisi, Jennie (MNIT)" <jennie.delisi@state.mn.us>, John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com>
- Cc: "lisa.seeman@zoho.com" <lisa.seeman@zoho.com>, COGA TF <public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org>, Silver TF <public-silver@w3.org>
On 08/03/2019 00:53, Alastair Campbell wrote: >> Be feasibly testable through automated or manual processes, i.e. take a few minutes per page with current tools. > > The update from 2.1 was adding ‘feasible’ and the “i.e…”. > > So there are two aspects: > > 1. It is feasible to test, however we define that. > 2. Any tools required to (feasibly) test it are available by publication. So if it's 'however' the "ie" should be "eg" :) I'd rather drop the time element, as John proposed, as we could discuss for ever and will always be somewhat of a moot point when we come to review proposed SCs. I do understand and value the intention, it's just so hard to quantify. Perhaps make it make time one of a set of things to consider when reviewing without attempting to make a judgement call in the criteria? I also think Glenda's clarification of ways of testing adds value so could be added. Steve
Received on Friday, 8 March 2019 09:33:24 UTC