- From: Chris Ridpath <chris.ridpath@utoronto.ca>
- Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 14:32:13 -0500
- To: "WAI-GL" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Joe, > The assumption here is that all guidelines are *machine*-testable. > Who's assumption? Not mine. Of course, not all guidelines can be machine testable. http://aprompt.snow.utoronto.ca/oac/ Did you read the section 'Machine Use And Human Decisions'? Chris ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joe Clark" <joeclark@joeclark.org> To: "WAI-GL" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org> Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 12:31 PM Subject: Re: Untestable success criteria > > > We've been working on a system to make accessibility guidelines testable and > > it may help in your work. > > The assumption here is that all guidelines are *machine*-testable. > > > This is still early in the development cycle and I would appreciate any > > feedback you may have. > > My feedback is that Chris is ideologically reluctant to accept that some > accessibility guidelines will never be machine-testable. It took hours and > thousands of words of explanation before he would finally reluctantly > conded that colour combinations for colour-normal visually-impaired people > could not be machine-tested. > > Of course it's possible to test all accessibility provisions. It would be > very interesting to have multiplatform, standards-compliant tools to > facilitate all kinds of testing-- machine- and human-driven. But if this > is a cover story to twist and deform WCAG into an undifferentiated set of > machine-testable guidelines, we have a problem. > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > Yeah, nice one. 150 lines of forwarded text. Nice. > > > -- > > Joe Clark | joeclark@joeclark.org > Author, _Building Accessible Websites_ > <http://joeclark.org/access/> | <http://joeclark.org/book/> >
Received on Thursday, 20 November 2003 14:32:55 UTC