Re: [TECH] Requirements for Techniques v0.3

Lisa Seeman writes:
 > Thanks for explaing it to me Jason. There is a need for testable techniques,
 > but may I recommend that:
 > a, test cases etc be available only in a specific rendering of the
 > techniques (so we do not confuse everybody) - as you suggested
 > and

I think that is what was intended. The requirements document sets out
what is to be included; a separate section will be provided to
identify the requirements of each of the intended views.

 > b, techniques that are not testable be included anyway.
 > It seems a bit daft to exclude useful techniques because they do not fit
 > with the needs of authoring tools and evaluation and repair tools etc.

My original suggestion on this point was that the testability status
of every technique be explicitly identified in the XML source from
which the checklists and other documents are generated, indicating
whether the technique is machine testable, human testable or not
testable at all. There has been no intention to exclude non-testable
techniques as such. Also, by providing such markup it becomes possible
to filter the techniques on the basis of testability, which may be
desirable for certain purposes.

It should also be noted that many content authors want testable
techniques to be provided wherever possible, without which they can't
reliably determine whether their content meets the pertinent
requirement. Thus, offering testable techniques where possible and
clear guidance where not, is the underlying strategy to be followed,
in the techniques as well as in the guidelines proper.

Received on Monday, 6 January 2003 16:07:13 UTC