W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > July to September 2005

RE: Exploding the myth of automated accessibility checking

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>
Message-Id: <20050809024501.1513560C151@eq1.spamarrest.com>

I think changing it to "and/or" is reasonable edit. 

 -- ------------------------------ 
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
Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force
Received on Tuesday, 9 August 2005 02:45:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:36:26 UTC