- From: John M Slatin <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>
- Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 11:56:46 -0500
- To: "Jason White" <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>
- Cc: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Thanks, Jason. Yes, we mean "... When they test the same content against the same success criteria." Thanks. And yes, I at least (I won't speak for Yvette here) was being deliberately vague about "usually" and "very similar." But see Michael's response on this same point, calling for us to define a threshhold and use it to test this very statement (or whatever version of it we agree to). John "Good design is accessible design." Please note our new name and URL! John Slatin, Ph.D. Director, Accessibility Institute University of Texas at Austin FAC 248C 1 University Station G9600 Austin, TX 78712 ph 512-495-4288, f 512-495-4524 email jslatin@mail.utexas.edu web http://www.utexas.edu/research/accessibility/ -----Original Message----- From: Jason White [mailto:jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au] Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2004 11:51 pm To: John M Slatin Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org Subject: Re: Revised statement on testability (was" Definition of human testability) On Tue, 11 May 2004, John M Slatin wrote: > > <begin proposed> > The Working Group believes that tests can show whether Web content > passes or fails each success criterion. Tests can be done by computer > programs or by people who understand these guidelines. We believe that > different people who understand the guidelines will usually get the > same or very similar results when they test the same success > criterion. </end proposed> you mean "when they test the same content against the same success criteria"? Are you being deliberately vague about what "usually" and "very similar" mean? For an explanation of what the working group believes has been achieved this is probably sufficient. In practice we will have to arrive at a clearer understanding of the conditions under which "usually" and "very similar" are satisfied. That can probably await detailed discussions of success criteria, though, and perhaps doesn't have to be, indeed perhaps cannot be, solved now. In general I think the proposed wording is clear and expresses what is intended.
Received on Wednesday, 12 May 2004 12:56:58 UTC