Re: Exploding the myth of automated accessibility checking

>> 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 |
     Accessibility <>
       --What's wrong with top-posting?

Received on Monday, 8 August 2005 20:10:01 UTC