- From: Joe Clark <joeclark@joeclark.org>
- Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 20:09:47 +0000 (UTC)
- To: WAI-GL <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
>> It's quite a devastating analysis and calls into question the WCAG
>> Working Group's interest in making as many guidelines as possible
>> machine-checkable.
>
> I thought the requirement was to make guidelines testable, not machine-
> checkable.
The Working Group is resistant to guidelines that require human checking,
e.g., document semantics. In fact, a co-chair simply dismissed the
consensus of leading outside experts-- which is typical behaviour for this
Working Group, but if that's the way you look at human-testable factors,
of course I'm going to assume you'd really prefer to make "as many
guidelines as possible machine-checkable."
If I'm wrong about that, let's turn it around. Would you mind terribly if
I worked on making as many guidelines as possible human-checkable? How
about 100%?
You wouldn't have a maker of testing software at such a high level in this
group if it were just another expendable thing you really didn't care much
about one way or another.
Let us get real here, please.
--
Joe Clark | joeclark@joeclark.org
Accessibility <http://joeclark.org/access/>
--This.
--What's wrong with top-posting?
Received on Monday, 8 August 2005 20:10:01 UTC