Re: Checkpoint on testability

At 08:51 AM 12/22/00 -0500, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
>I think I agree with Kynn - being testable doesn't seem to me to 
>automatically enhance accessibility

Not sure what "automatically" means but it's hard to see how if the 
elements of the Web - and our goal is not just accessible sites, but an 
accessible Web - were not to be testable/evaluationable/findable/usable/+ 
they would be accessible in the fullest sense.

Both the indexing and testability features are central to what we're about. 
At least at the P3 level it should be a requirement that one be able to 
test if a site conforms before trying to access it, else we become enmired 
in having to post yet another whine to Webwatch or whatever. Why should I 
have to even link to a site that will turn out to be untestable? At the 
moment it doesn't even have to proclaim its conformance status - even if it 
is Triple-A!

You can't just be accessible, you must "advertise" that status. There was a 
series of TV commercials with the tough inspector's punch-line "It can't 
say 'Hanes' until I say it can say 'Hanes'".

And you must index the site with such features as fragIDs (with appropriate 
summaries) and other semantic revelations. We must 
encourage/require/simplify/+ the process of authors conveying what they 
mean, not just how it's presented. A part of this is structure-revelation, 
part is testability for verifications of claims/assertions/proofs/+ of 
compliance.

--
Love.
                 ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE

Received on Friday, 22 December 2000 09:26:32 UTC