RE: ERT Action Item: Use Case Scenarios for EARL

Hi Shadi,
 
Please accept my apology if I appeared to by teaching people 'how to
suck eggs'! That certainly was not my intention as I appreciate that
audience of this email is very technically competent in this field.
 
What I was trying to say (perhaps I lost even myself in the epic novel)
was that not all human interaction test case scenarios will be
documented. It is impossible (not trying to teach you how to suck eggs
again!) to document every permutation of every test case scenario.  Our
own test specifications are based on 10 years of evolving and
improvement initiatives by the individuals responsible for using them
and as such, are pretty damn detailed and user friendly. Even though one
specification may hold many hundreds or even thousands of permutations
of test case scenarios, they will never document ever single one. 
 
This is why it's important to state in ones documentation that it is not
intended to cover every permutation, otherwise a missed permutation may
be assumed as not covered when it fact it might have been.
 
Does that make sense?
 
Kind regards,
Paul
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Shadi Abou-Zahra [mailto:shadi@w3.org] 
Sent: 04 April 2005 17:39
To: 'Paul Walsh'; public-wai-ert@w3.org
Subject: RE: ERT Action Item: Use Case Scenarios for EARL
 
Hi Paul,
 
> From what I can see of this suggested process, it does not appear 
> to incorporate the human interaction which is necessary for the 
> validation of any accessible website. 
 
Actually, while EARL is intended to be machine-readable, it simplifies
merging the results which are generated by tools and the ones which are
manually evaluated by humans into one repository. I think we all in the
group agree that no single tool is able to evaluate all accessibility
checkpoints automatically.
 
Do you feel a specific Use Case scenario to address that is missing?
 
Regards,
  Shadi