Re: Test samples checking

Hi Carlos, All,

At 17:54 27/11/2008, Carlos Iglesias wrote:
>Hi group,
>
>Due to my last action items here you have the 
>review of the techniques references and other 
>pending issues of my assigned test samples:
>
>016 - Everything is OK
>
>018 - Not sure about whether the test title and 
>the test description need or should put so much 
>emphasis on the absence of a summary, but otherwise looks OK.
>
>019 - The Description reads that the content of 
>the summary is: "This table shows the 
>department's student details", but in the test 
>file we have "This table shows the students details of the department."
>
>I propose to use a neutral title, such as 
>"Document containing a simple data table with a proper summary".
>
>Additionally, the purpose of the test says that 
>it is intended to pass because there is a 
>summary attribute, but the related technique 
>requires not only a summary but also an 
>appropriate one, so I propose to add "... 
>because there is a proper summary for the table."

I have adapted the test file and metadata according to these proposals.


>026 - The description and purpose talk just 
>about summary attribute, but the referenced 
>technique (F46) allows empty summaries for 
>layout tables, so I purpose to mention non-empty 
>summaries instead of just summary attributes.

I have adapted the metadata according to this proposal.


I'll look at the other ones later.

Best regards,

Christophe

>041 - The tests sample doesn't follow the naming 
>conventions because it has two files; one for 
>the test itself and one for the form action, but the second one is named:
>
>   [content-structure-separation-programmatic_041_processformdummy.html]
>
>042 - The tests sample doesn't follow the naming 
>conventions because it has two files; one for 
>the test itself and one for the form action, but 
>the second one is named [processdformdummy.html]
>
>Additionally, this test sample makes reference 
>to technique F68, but the technique is about the 
>association of label and user interface controls 
>not being programmatically determinable, and the 
>sample is about the lack of labels.
>
>As there is no technique about the lack of labels we have two options:
>
>Change the test sample to reflect the lack of 
>association between controls and labels or hold 
>it until a new technique is developed.
>
>Regards,
>  CI.
>
>____________________
>
>Carlos Iglesias
>
>Fundación CTIC
>Parque Científico-Tecnológico de Gijón
>33203 - Gijón, Asturias, España
>teléfono: +34 984291212
>email: carlos.iglesias@fundacionctic.org
>URL: http://www.fundacionctic.org

-- 
Christophe Strobbe
K.U.Leuven - Dept. of Electrical Engineering - SCD
Research Group on Document Architectures
Kasteelpark Arenberg 10 bus 2442
B-3001 Leuven-Heverlee
BELGIUM
tel: +32 16 32 85 51
http://www.docarch.be/
---
Please don't invite me to LinkedIn, Facebook, 
Quechup or other "social networks". You may have 
agreed to their "privacy policy", but I haven't.


Disclaimer: http://www.kuleuven.be/cwis/email_disclaimer.htm

Received on Tuesday, 16 December 2008 19:58:21 UTC