Re: What is a subject of a test?

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 20:54:17 +1000, Carlos Iglesias  
<carlos.iglesias@fundacionctic.org> wrote:

> 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"

Having read the WCAG spec a lot of times, it seems that a properly  
designed tool and an expert evaluator will get the same results nearly all  
the time... (of course a badly designed tool and a person testing without  
much idea of how to do it will not :-)

> What I mean is that if we don't have a clear specification then it will
> be open to personal interpretation.

Sure. But this is irrelevant to the EARL spec - it is a question of how  
good a particular spec we are testing against is.

In practical terms this particular ambiguity isn't such a big deal anyway.  
Mot specs are pretty clear on whether a result of Not Applicable is  
equivalent to a pass in determining overall conformance (as in the case of  
WCAG specs) or not...

Cheers

Chaals

-- 
Charles McCathieNevile                      Fundacion Sidar
charles@sidar.org   +61 409 134 136    http://www.sidar.org

Received on Thursday, 31 March 2005 15:11:03 UTC