Re: Exploding the myth of automated accessibility checking

On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 12:00:19 +0200, David Poehlman  
<david.poehlman@handsontechnologeyes.com> wrote:

> There are so many bad examples of machine determined human things that  
> it is surprising that weare not alloing humans to enter into the picture  
> or at least permitting them to have equal weight.  All guidelines need  
> to be human testableso that you can if you like use a simple sentence  
> below.

As I understand it, we already assume that everything is human testable  
(although some things, like mathematical analysis of colours, are painful  
to test by hand). The point is that there seems to be a misunderstanding  
about whether or not we are insisting on everything being machine testable.

Joe's mail suggests that he thinks WCAG is insisting on that. Loretta's,  
Thatch's, Wendy's, mine and others suggest that they thought we were  
aiming to make as much as possible machine testable (because that makes  
life easier for people) but that we clearly agree that human testing is  
the only answer we have to some things at the moment, and we happily  
recognise that.

cheers

Chaals

-- 
Charles McCathieNevile                      Fundacion Sidar
charles@sidar.org   +61 409 134 136    http://www.sidar.org

Received on Tuesday, 9 August 2005 11:12:25 UTC