Test Samples review

Hi everybody,

In response to my action item from the last teleconference, here you have a summary of the issues I found reviewing test samples.

Please note that, although being based on the review of test samples sc3.3.1_l1_018 to 020, most (or all) of them are likely to affect several other test samples.

STRUCTURE REVIEW

- There are still references to files that don't follow the naming convention (processformdummy.html, sc3.3.css) and JS is embedded instead of in a separate file.

- There's an embedded BTW copyright notice in the .html files

- Use of a couple of properties (complexity and rule) that are part of TCDL but not of TS Metadata.

- XPath expressions like /:html/:body/:form/:div/:input[1] without explicit namespaces ("/:" vs. "/hml:" for example). I'm not sure whether this is valid or not, but at least confusing.

- Invalid ID references at rulesets.xml (still think that using WCAG references directly would be our best option)

CONTENT REVIEW

- The test samples introduce some potential bad practices, for example not using a fieldset, div and brs instead of paragraphs, or relaying on JS for the form submission.

It's not clear how to proceed in this situation but I don't think we should "promote" this, specially taking into consideration that this kind of practices may be specifically discouraged by other techniques.

- The "expert guidance" element in the metadata provides extra information about user testing that is not present in the related test procedures.

Regards,
 CI.

__________________

Carlos Iglesias

Fundación CTIC
Parque Científico-Tecnológico de Gijón
33203 - Gijón, Asturias, España

teléfono: +34 984291212
fax: +34 984390612
email: carlos.iglesias@fundacionctic.org
URL: http://www.fundacionctic.org