- From: Leonard R. Kasday <kasday@acm.org>
- Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 14:22:42 -0400
- To: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>, WAI AU Guidelines <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>, WAI ER group <w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org>
At 12:13 PM 10/16/00 -0400, Charles McCathieNevile wrote: >We have been asked by the GL group, using this mapping as a guide, to produce >a draft of the techniques that actually looks at which of these things can be >checked by a tool. You'll need to define what it means to be "checked by a tool". Although it's possible for a tool to determine failure to pass certain checkpoints (e.g. absence of ALT text), it's only rarely possible for any tool to determine, by purely automatic means, that a page passes a checkpoint (e.g. is the ALT text correct?). Human judgment is needed in almost all cases. On the other hand, a tool can help supply that judgment. In other words, for each checkpoint there's the questions: - Can an automatic check produce any true negatives? - Will that check show all true negatives? - Can an automatic check produce any true positives? - Will that check show all true positives? - Is there any tool that can aid human judgment when human judgement is needed? And how much help does it give? (This is a - - subjective but important consideration). You'll need to decide what "can be checked by a tool" means. Len -- Leonard R. Kasday, Ph.D. Institute on Disabilities/UAP and Dept. of Electrical Engineering at Temple University (215) 204-2247 (voice) (800) 750-7428 (TTY) http://astro.temple.edu/~kasday mailto:kasday@acm.org Chair, W3C Web Accessibility Initiative Evaluation and Repair Tools Group http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/IG/ The WAVE web page accessibility evaluation assistant: http://www.temple.edu/inst_disabilities/piat/wave/
Received on Monday, 16 October 2000 14:20:25 UTC