W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2005

Re: [TECHS] Object tag test files.

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>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.60.0504071755180.17107@aristotle.multipattern.com>

> 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.


> 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/>
       --What's wrong with top-posting?
Received on Thursday, 7 April 2005 17:57:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 21:07:39 UTC