- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@sidar.org>
- Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2005 20:04:46 +0200
- To: "Nils Ulltveit-Moe" <nils@u-moe.no>
- Cc: shadi@w3.org, public-wai-ert@w3.org
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 11:41:12 +0200, Nils Ulltveit-Moe <nils@u-moe.no> wrote: ... > A question in this case, is if the tool should have the possibility to > report a fourth value in this case (I.e. "#DontKnow") or if this should > be indicated with the tool returning "#ManualInspectionNeeded" or > nothing, indicating implicitly by returning nothing for this test case? > This would typically have to be done if the confidence value is not > used. This is exactly what Hera does (and presumably other tools). In our new semi-automated version we get some more interesting results. For example, the tool will do a number of tests for WCAG 1 checkpoint 1.1. If they are not definitive (which can only arise if the results are all notApplicable, since it doesn't even try to examine the actual text alternative at the moment) then the end result for the checkpoint is "Cannot Tell", although it notes the things it has discovered (for example that there are images but no applets, movies, audio, ...) in an earl message. (At the moment we don't identify the results of the sub-tests - that's the next bit of work. We might have to find some more money for that). Anything listed as cannot tell is listed as requiring manual testing (at least for the part that the tool couldn't do on its own). If anyone wants to try the beta version it is now generally available at http://www.sidar.org/prueba but only in Spanish (we haven't set up the translation system with it yet - that's currently about the last step out of beta). cheers Chaals -- Charles McCathieNevile Fundacion Sidar charles@sidar.org +61 409 134 136 http://www.sidar.org
Received on Sunday, 17 April 2005 18:04:58 UTC