- From: Paul Walsh <paul.walsh@segalamtest.com>
- Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 10:55:47 +0100
- To: "'Paul Walsh'" <paul.walsh@segalamtest.com>, "'Nils Ulltveit-Moe'" <nils@u-moe.no>
- Cc: "'Charles McCathieNevile'" <charles@sidar.org>, "'Giorgio Brajnik'" <giorgio@dimi.uniud.it>, <public-wai-ert@w3.org>
Sorry, my answer below was a bit short, that was no intentional as I decided to answer the email as I was rushing to a short meeting. I appreciate the magnitude of the testing you do. What I'm trying to say, is that an independent validator who provides a branded stamp of approval should not automate the majority of their testing - not in the UK anyway where it appears to be more open to litigation than most countries. My comment was not directed at you Nils :) We are doing quite different measurements. We will be trying to do automatic assessments of a large number of sites (several thousand) regularly. We will need to do some manual testing, and will base our tests largely on automatic assessments. In our case we need to base ourself on probability theory and best practices in statistics to reach numbers that approximate the perceived accessibility over a large number of assessments, to make it feasible. [PW] This will not be accurate and I would question the process itself of using automation for the majority of your validation. Regards, -- Nils Ulltveit-Moe <nils@u-moe.no>
Received on Tuesday, 19 April 2005 09:55:49 UTC