- From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
- Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 21:44:59 -0500
- To: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
- Cc: "'WAI-GL'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
I think changing it to "and/or" is reasonable edit. Gregg -- ------------------------------ Gregg C Vanderheiden. -----Original Message----- From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Patrick H. Lauke Subject: Re: Exploding the myth of automated accessibility checking Wendy Chisholm wrote: > The 30 June 2005 Working Draft of WCAG 2.0 says, "The Working Group > believes that all success criteria should be testable. Tests can be > done by computer programs or by people who understand this document. I'd say the core problem here lies with the "or" in that last sentence. It implies that *all* tests can be done by *either* a computer *or* a person. You would probably want something more along the lines of: "Carrying out the entire series of tests will require people who understand this document. However, some (or even "a small subset of") tests can be automated / performed by computer programs." -- Patrick H. Lauke __________________________________________________________ re.dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com __________________________________________________________ Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __________________________________________________________
Received on Tuesday, 9 August 2005 02:45:29 UTC