- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@sidar.org>
- Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 17:09:11 +0100
- To: Michael Cooper <michaelc@watchfire.com>
- Cc: w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org
On Monday, Jan 5, 2004, at 16:53 Europe/Rome, Michael Cooper wrote: > Hi Charles - are you looking at the ability to test dynamic pages > generated > based on form data and behind form submits? Essentially I think I am looking at this process, in the first instance. And yes, Watchfire sounds like the other tools described that handle this. > Or is there something about the > interaction of the pages and independent of the generated content of > any > individual page? The one thing that comes up here is related to EARL - how do I describe the fact that I have assessed "the login process for a website"? I presume it isn't that tricky, but requires a special RDF vocabulary which can talk about a process which includes multiple pages that each have to meet a set of criteria. Because if any one of the pages fails, then the process will fail. And quite often the processes, or user paths, are what is important - I think this is used more formally in usability testing, but it strikes me as a different way of explaining something rather than a fundamental difference in what people do. I'll think about it, because it seems an interesting way to extend EARL data. It also points up the strength of having EARL as RDF - it should be relatively easy to do in a way that doesn't require rebuilding lots of tools... Cheers Chaals -- Charles McCathieNevile Fundación Sidar charles@sidar.org http://www.sidar.org
Received on Monday, 5 January 2004 11:10:32 UTC