RE: [ACTION] Warnings in EARL

 

Hi everybody,

Comments at the bottom:

> 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.

This is why I think it's better to treat warning messages as just messages and not validity levels
 
> I still prefer the sub-classing approach.

IMO the only thing that it's clear enough along all this discussion is that warnings are a can of worms (and IMO bad practices). Everyone has a different viewpoint of what they are and what they mean. This is why I'm not in favour of providing "direct support" by sub-classing and prefer a "this is just a special kind of text message" approach.

Regards,
 CI.
 
--------------------------------------

Carlos Iglesias

CTIC Foundation
Science and Technology Park of Gijón
33203 - Gijón, Asturias, Spain 

phone: +34 984291212
fax: +34 984390612
email: carlos.iglesias@fundacionctic.org
URL: http://www.fundacionctic.org

Received on Tuesday, 5 December 2006 14:23:04 UTC