RE: [techs] granularity and testing...

Yup I'll agree with this - but that has implications for the statements
we make about testing checkpoints by testable techniques.

If techniques are examples for implementation of a checkpoint, and does
not include all scenarios -  then people can have fulfilled the
checkpoint without confirming to any documented technique.

And we need to acknowledge that.

All the best
Lisa Seeman
 
Visit us at the UB Access website
UB Access - Moving internet accessibility
 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Roberto Castaldo
> Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 7:07 PM
> To: 'lisa seeman'; 'WAI GL (E-mail)'
> Subject: R: [techs] granularity and testing...
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Lisa, hi folks,
> 
> 
> Lisa:
> for some checkpoints and guidelines there can be many  
> scenario and I think we want to discuses the granularity of 
> the tests and ...
> 
> Roberto C:
> That's exactly the problem many people are asking us to fix: 
> as you said, we could go for as many detailed scenarios as we 
> can, but can we go for every possible kind of scenarios? 
> 
> I don't think so, it would be simply impossible, and after 
> all I don't think this is what WCAG guidelines are expected 
> to represent. 
> IMHO the guideline text must be written so that the goal to 
> work for is clear for everyone who develops every kind of 
> page or site, but it's unreal to try and provide developers 
> with examples of all the possible solutions.
> 
> My best regards,
> 
> Roberto Castaldo
> -----------------------------------
> www.Webaccessibile.Org coordinator
> IWA/HWG Member
> rcastaldo@webaccessibile.org
> r.castaldo@iol.it
> Cell 348 3700161
> Icq 178709294
> ----------------------------------- 
>  
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 18 March 2004 12:23:12 UTC