RE: Exploding the myth of automated accessibility checking

The group is in no way resistant to human checkable.   Never has been.
Human testability has been a viable type of testability in every version
from the beginning.

Please stop making things up and then arguing against them.  

 -- ------------------------------ 
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 
Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center 
University of Wisconsin-Madison 

-----Original Message-----
From: [] On Behalf
Of Joe Clark
Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 3:10 PM
Subject: 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

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 21:55:28 UTC