Re: WCAG 2.2 acceptance criteria

I had assumed 'manual' meant "without any extra tools" so they were 
obviously optional. Now, I sense see some tools could be used manually 
rather than automated (eg progmatically) and requiring they be created 
is a concern. Alternatively existing tools could be repurposed and used 
for the testing in which chase nothing new be developed other than a 
script to be manually followed.

Some rewording would clarify.

Steve

On 11/03/2019 11:10, lisa.seeman wrote:
> I am strongly  against requiring tools to go to CR. Having the algerithm 
> etc should be enough.
> 
> with our history some people invested a lot to build tools and find open 
> source tools etc. ( they just needed a better interface.)
> Anyway, it is not reasonable to expect people to invest in making tools 
> again before we even get to CR considering the group will probably pull 
> everything out in the CR stage anyway
> 
> If a tool could reasonably be built in a few days of programming time, 
> and in the meen time it can be tested by hand 9even if that is slower)  
> that should be enough.
> 
> 
> 
> All the best
> 
> Lisa Seeman
> 
> LinkedIn <http://il.linkedin.com/in/lisaseeman/>, Twitter 
> <https://twitter.com/SeemanLisa>
> 
> 
> 
> ---- On Fri, 08 Mar 2019 13:30:03 +0200 *Steve Lee <stevelee@w3.org 
> <mailto:stevelee@w3.org>>* wrote ----
> 
>     On 08/03/2019 09:54, Alastair Campbell wrote:
>      > Steve Lee wrote:
>      >> I'd rather drop the time element, as John proposed
>      >
>      > I’m not married to that so long as we have some understanding it
>     will work in the various scenarios John outlined, how about:
>      > "Can be feasibly tested through a manual or automated processes,
>     and any tools needed to test it are available before the Candidate
>     Recommendation stage."
> 
>     +1
> 
> 
>      >> I also think Glenda's clarification of ways of testing adds
>     value so could be added.
>      >
>      > The descriptions are good, but you look at the bullets in context
>     (given that we've had this massive discussion on 1 out of 8 bullet
>     points), it adds a lot, and we're just trying to clear up that "it
>     is testable".
> 
>     OK
> 
>     Only 7 to go.... (joke)
> 
>     Steve
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Monday, 11 March 2019 13:07:29 UTC