- From: <james.nurthen@oracle.com>
- Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 23:11:38 +0900
- To: josh@interaccess.ie
- Cc: Gregg Vanderheiden <gregg@raisingthefloor.org>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <95B965BD-8366-4F56-AAE1-1199A40A1965@oracle.com>
I think Karl Groves created a blog post a few years ago which essentially stated that about 17% of WCAG could be fully automatically tested. I'm at Haneda airport at the moment so can't look for it but there are many more details within. Essentially I would expect that about 17% of the "requirements" in WCAG can be automatically tested. > On Oct 30, 2015, at 22:47, josh@interaccess.ie wrote: > > Thanks Gregg for the info (and indeed warning). I guess the comments from Detlev and Jon got me thinking of ways to strengthen/bolster the quality of SC conformance. IIRC, I also remember Loretta being rather cautious of minting new failures unless absolutely necessary. > > Josh > > Sent from Windows Mail > > From: Gregg Vanderheiden > Sent: Thursday, 29 October 2015 21:44 > To: Joshue O Connor > Cc: WCAG > > Failures are great — but they are VERY hard to do. > > They never broaden an SC — and they can only be created if there is no way to pass under any circumstances for any content for any technology if you do this. > > We (the working group) has had to remove a number that we created due to this. > > > 1) the SC has to absolutely require it > 2) it has to be impossible to pass the SC for all case if the failure is true. > > They are very helpful to evaluators when they can be created. > > Gregg > > > > On Oct 29, 2015, at 11:12 AM, Joshue O Connor <josh@interaccess.ie> wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > In the last thread - some interesting comments from Detlev and Jon A, got me thinking and I want to give a +1. I agree with Detlev and Jon and think this is a clever approach to providing better support for existing SCs, by having more and varied failures. > > > > Thanks > > > > Josh > > > >
Received on Friday, 30 October 2015 14:12:29 UTC