Re: revised reviews for 001 and 002

Hi Tim, All,

At 18:25 28/07/2008, Shadi Abou-Zahra wrote:

>Hi Tim,
>
>Tim Boland wrote:
>>I have revised my reviews of 001 and 002 after considering the new 
>>information in:
>>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert-tsdtf/2008Jul/0014.html
>>and rereading the process document.  All my conclusions now are 
>>"pass" or "fail" (no more "not sures).. with additional explanations provided.
>
>Thank you very much for updating these. They look much better and 
>are much clearer. You have also caught some important issues that 
>need to be discussed. Note however that many of these catches belong 
>into the content reviews rather than the structure reviews. Please 
>find some comments below to further explain this.
>
>
>## Review 001:
>
>- Question: All the files include correct links unless otherwise 
>required by the test.
>- Your review: fail, link http://lists.w3.org.. in metadata file is broken
>- Comment: I was not able to replicate the broken link. The only 
>link that matches your description seems correct to me: 
><http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert-tsdtf/>

The original URL in the metadata was 
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert-tests/>; I fixed 
this two weeks ago.


>- Question: All the files include correct spelling unless otherwise 
>required by the test.
>- Your review: fail, in testfile, should be "for" formatting, not 
>"from" formatting - broken English
>- Comment: good catch!

Fixed.


>- Question: All the dates and other integer or literal values have 
>the correct format.
>- Your review: fail, date is given as for example 2008/06/12 - 
>shouldn't it be 06-12-2008 according to format referenced in metadata document?
>- Comment: actually no, CVS values such as "2008/07/16 14:42:48" are 
>accepted: <http://bentoweb.org/refs/TCDL2.0.html#edef-dcdate>

Tim's original comment was justified; this is now fixed.


>- Question: All static values (especially copyright notices) are 
>included and accurate.
>- Your review: fail, copyright is given as a range of dates 
>1994-2006 - shouldn't it be one date (date copyright is effective)?
>- Comment: this is a boilerplate text, and the range is fine. It 
>needs to be updated to 2008 though, but that is a known issue for all tests.

This is now fixed in all metadata files.


>- Question: All titles, descriptions, and other required fields are 
>included and accurate.
>- Your review: fail, purpose tag is misleading in metadata file, and 
>title tag in testfile is misleading as well as broken English ("for" 
>instead of "from") - can't be proven that this is what blockquote is 
>being used for
>Comment: while this is an important issue to discuss, these types of 
>comments really belong into the content review as they interpret the 
>test sample. Note that I took an action item to revise the wording 
>of the structure review template to clarify this.

I have changed the test file to make it more obvious what the 
blockquote is being used for.
I have also fixed the typos ("for" instead of "from") in both 
metadata and test files for 001 and 002.

Tim,
Could you look at this again and revise your review once more?



>## Review 002:
>
>Question: [all the ones that repeat review 001]
>Comment: same as above.
>
>Question: All identifiers (especially ID for techniques and rules) 
>are used correctly.
>Your review: fail, reference is to failure technique but this test 
>is a "pass" according to purpose (see previous comment)? Also 
>HTML4.01 says blockquote is for long quotes, and this is a short 
>one? Should we use quote marks to make it more obvious that this is 
>a "quote" (again, testing intent)?
>Comment: this is a really important intervention that needs 
>discussion. As with the previous comment on Review 001, this really 
>belongs into the content review rather than the structure review. I 
>have taken an action item to also revise this wording.

I have changed the test file so it now has more text in the 
blockquote element. I also changed the title element in the test file.

With regard to the "pass" statement and the reference to the 
reference to a failure instead of a technique: we need to identify a 
relevant technique to replace the reference to the failure. The best 
fit I could find is G115: Using semantic elements to mark up 
structure 
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-WCAG20-TECHS-20080430/G115.html>. We 
will later need to check if failure F43 (F43: Failure of Success 
Criterion 1.3.1 due to using structural markup in a way that does not 
represent relationships in the content) is covered by the test sample suite.


Tim,
Could you look at this again and revise your review once more?

Best regards,

Christophe



>Thanks,
>   Shadi
>
>--
>Shadi Abou-Zahra - http://www.w3.org/People/shadi/ |
>   WAI International Program Office Activity Lead   |
>  W3C Evaluation & Repair Tools Working Group Chair |

-- 
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, 29 July 2008 15:45:43 UTC