- From: Johannes Koch <johannes.koch@fit.fraunhofer.de>
- Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2006 10:52:26 +0100
- To: public-wai-ert@w3.org
Shadi Abou-Zahra schrieb: [mobileOK basic] > They also define exactly when the WARN result > should be issued by using pseudo code for each test. Maybe that's because mobileOK basic is intended to be fully machine-testable. > In WCAG we don't > have a clear definition of when warnings should be issued so this may > lead to tool developers misusing warning results to satisfy the users > who don't like to see errors. WCAG 2 is intended to be testable. Whether a success criterion is machine-testable or not is not defined. So developers of automatic testing tools for WCAG 2 have to think about how to present additional expert tests to the tool user. This could be a use case for a warning attached to a CANNOT_TELL result. However the "Understanding" document clearly lists some PASSes an FAILs. So a tool that throws a warning (with PASS or CANNOT_TELL) instead of a FAIL when finding a common failure is wrong. I still prefer the sub-classing approach. -- Johannes Koch - Competence Center BIKA Fraunhofer Institute for Applied Information Technology (FIT.LIFE) Schloss Birlinghoven, D-53757 Sankt Augustin, Germany Phone: +49-2241-142628 Fax: +49-2241-142065
Received on Tuesday, 5 December 2006 09:53:31 UTC