- From: Gez Lemon <gez.lemon@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2005 08:47:50 +0100
- To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Hi Tina, > Making a case against automated testing while using the tools > incorrectly is an interesting practice. You're absolutely correct, but that was the point I was trying to make. Developers are encouraged to separate structure, presentation, and behaviour. Unfortunately, the free testing tools only validate the markup. People subscribed to this list will understand that, but I work with people who have more faith in validators than their own understanding, and will remove accessibility features because a validator says there's an error which there clearly isn't, or will believe something is okay, despite it being an obvious error. It's these people that the article is aimed at. Accessibility validators are useful, but all the time they only evaluate markup, are very limited. Also, the context could never be known for sure, which is always going to be a problem with automated testing. The W3C's markup validator can ensure the document conforms to a DTD, but couldn't know for sure whether the most appropriate elements for the content had been chosen. Similarly, the presence of attribute values can be checked, but their relevance cannot easily be determined. Best regards, Gez -- _____________________________ Supplement your vitamins http://juicystudio.com
Received on Tuesday, 9 August 2005 07:47:56 UTC