RE: Automated and manual testing process

Andrew asked:
> 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?

I agree with folks pointing out that "manual testing" is not a great term.  Alastair clarified what the term means for him, and I think it is more than good enough:

>> Manual review/audit, where an expert goes through a sample of pages using the guidelines. This can assess 'appropriateness' of things like alt text, headings,  markup and interactions (e.g. scripted events).

That *can* be a single person, but I do not trust for myself.  IMHO the fastest and best way to test is with an expert using screen reading software, while a sighted expert looks over their shoulder to ensure that the UI is not failing in a way that causes something important to be missed.  So I think that hits what AWK "cannot be done by a single person and requires user testing".

But all the WCAG 2.0 failures can be tracked back to source code, and we absolutely want to keep that level of objectivity.  So what I characterized as the fastest is best way to test is not the only way to test.

Alastair continues:
>> If something 'requires' multiple testers then we need to (try to) write the guideline or guidance better.

To which I can only say:
+1

Received on Monday, 30 January 2017 14:50:18 UTC