- From: Vicente Luque Centeno <vlc@it.uc3m.es>
- Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2006 18:54:02 +0100 (CET)
- To: Johannes Koch <johannes.koch@fit.fraunhofer.de>
- cc: public-wai-ert@w3.org
> AFAIRC it's the WCAG WG's job to define test procedures for common failures > and suffiecient techniques. And there are already procedures in the > Techniques document. However everyone can make proposals for test procedures. Hi. What do you mean by "procedures in the Techniques document already"? The ones in pseudo code listed at http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/WD-WCAG20-TECHS-20060801/Overview.html ? Maybe other document? >> P.S.: It's OK to have a big & complete test sample repository, with >> examples of what is good and what is bad, but I think it would have much >> more value if every/most/as many as possible/some of these test samples >> would come with a declarative rule/condition that formalizes such >> conditions is a machine testable way. > > Not 'every' success criterion in WCAG 2.0 is machine-testable. So 'as many as > possible' should be the goal :-) I agree :-). However, for those which are not machine testable a pseudo-code or paragraph could be OK. My proposal is to combine pseudo code and machine-testable rules "as possible" so that both pseudo code and machine testable rules COMPLEMENT/REINFORCE each other. Cheers.
Received on Wednesday, 6 December 2006 17:54:16 UTC