- From: Joe Clark <joeclark@joeclark.org>
- Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 17:57:40 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Doyle-Work <dburnett@sesa.org>
- cc: David MacDonald <befree@magma.ca>, W3C Web Content <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> What I believe David is saying (David, please correct me if I am wrong) is > that test suites, not unlike web content in a general sense should be > accessible as though it/they too were WCAG compliant. Except for the cases that are specifically listed as noncompliant. WCAG, as I've mentioned before, has to allow for those. Otherwise you could never post a page of "Here are 10 images with not alt texts. Write them and send us back your response." > Are the above test suites WCAG compliant? I looked at one link: > > http://www.student.oulu.fi/~sairwas/object-test/images/gif1.html > > (this was #1. Under Images on that page. The test suite did not have the > image of the dog alt tagged, thus the suite did not conform to WCAG. Plus, False. It uses the <object> element correctly, not the <img> element, and is valid HTML save for an error in character encoding. <http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.student.oulu.fi%2F%7Esairwas%2Fobject-test%2Fimages%2Fgif1.html&charset=iso-8859-1+%28Western+Europe%29> > So, in part, I do not think David is saying, test suites do not exist or > cannot exist but more likely that he'd (and I agree) like to see the suites > (where at ALL possible) be accessible themselves. I agree that test suites > that are NOT accessible send the wrong messages to developers. I think the discussion is entirely hypothetical and strikes me as worrying over nothing. -- Joe Clark | joeclark@joeclark.org Accessibility <http://joeclark.org/access/> --This. --What's wrong with top-posting?
Received on Thursday, 7 April 2005 17:57:54 UTC