Re: Common failures (was: Common failures and baseline)

Hi Gregg

Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:
> Sorry Johannes, 
> 
> I didn't mean your last sentence.

I quoted _your_, not _my_ last sentence.

> A common failure causes a failure if the content you are relying on for
> conformance contains it.   If it is in an alternate version of the content
> (that is in parallel with the accessible version) then the failure (in the
> non-accessible version) would not cause the parallel, accessible version to
> fail unless it interfered with the accessible version.

With 'accessible version' and 'alternate version' you mean different web 
units like in Situations A and B in "How to Meet Success Criterion 4.2.1"?

> RE your second question:  I am not sure what you mean by "the technique must
> not interfere with a listed common failure."   I'm not sure what interfering
> with a failure means?

With interfering I mean the following: You write some content. The 
result of performing the test procedure for a listed common failure for 
SC n.n.n on your content is "FAIL". Someone invents a technique, which 
he thinks to be sufficient to meet SC n.n.n. In the reply to Tim, that I 
quoted, you said this is possible (non-listed technique). The procedure 
for testing your content with this technique would result in "PASS". So 
it is not clear whether your content PASSes or FAILs the SC n.n.n.

IMHO this must not be possible. The test for a non-listed sufficient 
technique must not result in "PASS" when the test for a listed common 
failure results in "FAIL". The test for a non-listed common failure must 
  not result in "FAIL" when the test for a listed sufficient technique 
results in "PASS".

> Also not sure what it means for a 'test procedure to
> fail a success criterion'.

Did I write that? But this is what I meant: For each common failure in 
the "Techniques" document there is (or at least should be) a test procedure.

-- 
Johannes Koch
In te domine speravi; non confundar in aeternum.
                             (Te Deum, 4th cent.)

Received on Wednesday, 24 May 2006 07:58:59 UTC