- From: David MacDonald <befree@magma.ca>
- Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 13:57:18 -0400
- To: "'Joe Clark'" <joeclark@joeclark.org>
- Cc: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Joe writes: >>Do you really mean test *suites*? Because we have those. <http://www.student.oulu.fi/~sairwas/object-test/> I am reviewing the test files from Chris's suite (U of T), his are in a consistent format with all other HTML tests, so I think we should stick with Chris' tests. > In general I have a problem with tests that are designed to pass a certain > accessibility principle but are inaccessible in other respects. >>Such as? No captions on multimedia? What? Many difference ways depending on the test. I understand that they are very granular, looking only at one aspect of accessibility for each test, but I get nervous about a webmaster looking at an inaccessible file that indicates a pass according to one aspect of accessibility, but is inaccessible. For, example 80-3 has a python clock object. The alternate content in a clock image. There is not alternate text, but it is listed as a passing test. > Can we not create passing test files that are WCAG compliant in other > respects. Do you refer to using object and embed in valid HTML? <http://joeclark.org/access/captioning/bpoc/embed-object.html> No I was not referring to the embed/object debate, my task is to go over the current object tests, not to evaluate the validity of using the embed as an alternative to object. Cheers David -- Joe Clark | joeclark@joeclark.org Accessibility <http://joeclark.org/access/> --This. --What's wrong with top-posting?
Received on Thursday, 7 April 2005 17:57:42 UTC