- From: Carlos Iglesias <carlos.iglesias@fundacionctic.org>
- Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2007 00:17:28 +0200
- To: "Shadi Abou-Zahra" <shadi@w3.org>, <public-wai-ert@w3.org>
Hi, > [...] > I was also particularly interested in the question on the > format of the > tests -I think this pseudo-code approach could be useful for WCAG 2.0 > Techniques too, what do others think? IMO the pseudo-code approach is really useful, in fact we have been using this approach in our internal methodologies since time ago, and we found it really productive as a complement to the verbose explanations to help our team (several non-techies included) to follow the same conventions and avoid ambiguities. We also find very helpful to include the applicability condition (when relevant) in the pseudo-code, otherwise some times could be not clear when to produce a N/A output vs. a Pass/Fail one. E.g. 3.5 DEFAULT_INPUT_MODE Note that if there is no input or textarea element as the test is currently define it will be a PASS, IMO it should be a N/A and I think there's an important difference. Additionally we also think this is also a good practice for the shake of completeness in the algorithm, and would like to encourage mOK people (and the WCAG WG if they start to produce pseudo-code, as we think there is currently this level of ambiguity also in some WCAG1 checkpoints) to follow this practice. I would like to see what others think about this. 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 Friday, 8 June 2007 22:17:58 UTC