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

Yes this is correct Chris.

A better way to have said it would be "based on the Understanding WCAG 2.0
doc", it would be 'cannot tell'.  You would then have to turn to the
expertise, reputation and warrantee of the evaluator for Pass or Fail. 


Gregg

 -- ------------------------------ 
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 
Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center 
University of Wisconsin-Madison 
The Player for my DSS sound file is at http://tinyurl.com/dho6b 
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Chris Ridpath
> Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 10:34 AM
> To: Gregg Vanderheiden; 'Johannes Koch'; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Common failures (was: Common failures and baseline)
> 
> 
> > 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 cannottell.
> 
> 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.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Friday, 26 May 2006 15:46:19 UTC