- From: phoenixl <phoenixl@sonic.net>
- Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 18:35:39 -0700
- To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Hi, Liz This is an interesting point. If I were to characterize the task, it would be something like testing the usability of a web page being presented in a non-visual format. The accessibility aspect comes into play because of the particular reason for interacting with the web page non-visually. I strongly agree that both automatic testing and real subject testing both need to be done. Automatic testing really only works for detecting the problems that are of such a nature that they can be described in a way as to be detected by an automatic approach. There are other types of problems which cannot be described in such a way, e.g. comparing an image to the text describing the image, user making certain assumptions based on previous experiences. Scott > Validation is all fine and good but it would be quite simple to have a site > that validates and passes all the standards tests but when a user sits in > front of it they can't use it at all. Perhaps what Scott is testing in his > phone sessions is not accessibility per se but usability by people who are > blind. This is an extremely valuable activity that will provide way more > insight into how people will access your site than a simple validation > activity. Both automated validation testing and real live user testing are > important steps in good site design. > > Liz
Received on Wednesday, 29 May 2002 21:36:17 UTC