W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2006

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

From: ? <chris.ridpath@utoronto.ca>
Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 11:34:13 -0400
Message-ID: <035101c680d9$d77363c0$e29a968e@WILDDOG>
To: "Gregg Vanderheiden" <gv@trace.wisc.edu>, "'Johannes Koch'" <koch@w3development.de>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

> Not using a sufficient technique and not committing a common
> failure results in CannotTell."

This doesn't seem right. If you were evaluating a page for compliance to 
WCAG2 and the page was not using a sufficient technique and not using a 
common failure you still rate the page as pass, fail or possibly even 

A human evaluator with expertise in accessibility testing would be expected 
to always rate the page as pass or fail. If these human evaluators found 
compliance as "cannot tell" then it would mean the guideline was untestable.

If a machine were to evaluate a web page it would be quite acceptable to 
find compliance as "cannot tell". The machine could also return a result of 
fail but I don't think there are any HTML pages that a machine could return 
a result of pass.

EARL is used to express test results not details about the tests themselves. 
We still don't have a test description language.

Received on Friday, 26 May 2006 15:34:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 21:07:45 UTC