- From: Alistair Garrison <alistair.j.garrison@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 17:06:52 +0200
- To: Eval TF <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <A73BA2A3-FF5C-46A8-B1A8-E953137205CE@gmail.com>
Dear All, Would it be possible to add my comments about Step 1.e to the comments document - http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/conformance/comments Begin forwarded message: > From: Alistair Garrison <alistair.j.garrison@gmail.com> > Subject: Step 1.e: Define the Techniques to be used > Date: 10 May 2012 10:48:41 CEST > To: Eval TF <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org> > > Dear All, > > "Step 1.e: Define the Techniques to be used" - could we consider making this step non-optional? > > The first reason being that we really need to check their implementation of the techniques (W3C, their own code of best practice or whatever) they say they use. > > For example: > > - Case 1) If they have done something by using technique A, and we evaluate using technique B there could be an issue (they might fail B); > - Case 2) If they have done something by using technique A, and we evaluate using technique A and B there still could be an issue (they might fail B); > - Case 3) If they have done something by using technique A, and we evaluate using technique A - it seems to work. > > The second reason being that testing seems only to be really replicable if we know what the techniques were they said they implemented - otherwise, two different teams could easily get two different results based on the cases above. > > I would be interested to hear your thoughts. > > Very best regards > > Alistair >
Received on Thursday, 31 May 2012 15:07:32 UTC