- From: Carlos Iglesias <carlos.iglesias@fundacionctic.org>
- Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 12:54:17 +0200
- To: <shadi@w3.org>, <public-wai-ert@w3.org>
Hi all, Mmmm... It looks like the mailing list is being quite active today :) Let's see... > > Would it be necessary for the EARL spec to clearly define how to do > that > > in order to make interchange of EARL reports possible? > > Yes, I think you are absolutely right that we need to clearly > define this situation in the specification. Well, in deed I think there we need to clearly define several things in the specification (as was pointed by Grabriele at point 2 in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert/2005Feb/0034.html) in order to avoid inconsistence between reports from different tools Another example of ambiguity in the specification: Instances of ValidityLevel * cannotTell * fail * notApplicable * notTested * pass When to use each one? Let's continue with this example: Checkpoint 5.3: Do not use tables for layout unless the table makes sense when linearized. Otherwise, if the table does not make sense, provide an alternative equivalent (which may be a linearized version). [Priority 2] If the tool is checking a web page and it detects that it has no tables, which will be the validity level for this ckeckpoint? A- notApplicable >From the tool's point of view there are no tables and the checkpoint is not applicable because there is nothing to check B- pass But an accessibility expert could think "it's not using tables, so it passes the chekpoint" C- others why? What I mean is that if we don't have a clear specification then it will be open to personal interpretation. Any thoughts? Regards, CI.
Received on Thursday, 31 March 2005 10:54:56 UTC