- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2000 05:01:23 -0400 (EDT)
- To: WAI AU Guidelines <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>, WAI ER group <w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org>
Hi. A while ago we talked about the kind of things we want to say about conformance - that a checkpoint is met at a certain level, or is not applicable, or is not met, or is not tested. ER have discussed doing this with greater granularity to a document - how to say it for diffferent parts of a document, and I am thinking that you should be looking at Xpath as a way of defining those parts. AU has been looking at patial evaluation based on the fact that there are several different tests that need to be done on an Authoring tool (or piece of content) to determine if it meets all the relevant guidelines. As a convenience we are trying to reduce the number of tests, and to describe what those tests themselves cover. For example, some tests are one-for-one testof a checkpoint, some can cover several checkpoints at once (most obviously where there are redundancies, and there are a couple in WCAG and one in ATAG by even the most conservative estimates), and some checkpoints require several (which/how many) tests. I would be interested to find out what properties people think are important to allow testing to be proceduralised. Some things to think about are comparing different tests of the same thing, and combining test of different things to get an overall result. So Who, when, and extra comments have already been put up as important. There are probably more... Cheers Charles -- Charles McCathieNevile mailto:charles@w3.org phone: +61 (0) 409 134 136 W3C Web Accessibility Initiative http://www.w3.org/WAI Location: I-cubed, 110 Victoria Street, Carlton VIC 3053 Postal: GPO Box 2476V, Melbourne 3001, Australia
Received on Monday, 4 September 2000 05:01:24 UTC