- From: Carlos Iglesias <carlos.iglesias@fundacionctic.org>
- Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2006 15:22:34 +0100
- To: "Johannes Koch" <johannes.koch@fit.fraunhofer.de>, <public-wai-ert@w3.org>
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