- From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
- Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2017 22:57:41 +0000
- To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
On 28/01/2017 22:36, Andrew Kirkpatrick wrote: > AGWGer’s, > I’d like to get the thoughts from the group on what constitutes “manual > testing” (I’m more comfortable with what counts as automated testing). > > Testing the presence of alternative text on an image in HTML or other > formats can be done with automated testing, but testing for the presence > of good alternative text requires (at least for now) human involvement > in the test process (manual testing). Maybe the distinction that is more aptly between "automated testing" and "human testing" (the latter requiring one or more people's actual judgement). > What if testing cannot be done by a single person and requires user > testing – does that count as manual testing, or is that something different? Personally, I'm concerned about anything that *requires* user testing. It can already be difficult enough to get consistent traditional "manual testing" results between two auditors (unless they work off of a very precise set of criteria beyond the word of WCAG to allow them to come to the same conclusion on certain SCs). Once you require user testing you add a whole host of further potential sources of inconsistency (e.g. different sample sizes, different socio-economic groups, different sets of abilities/disabilities, etc) into the mix. Not to mention that in many cases, SCs that *require* user testing will simply not be practical to test for smaller companies/individuals doing audits. P -- Patrick H. Lauke www.splintered.co.uk | https://github.com/patrickhlauke http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | http://redux.deviantart.com twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
Received on Saturday, 28 January 2017 22:58:09 UTC