- From: Jim Thatcher <jim@jimthatcher.com>
- Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 21:45:28 -0500
- To: "'Joe Clark'" <joeclark@joeclark.org>, "'WAI-GL'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
- Cc: "'WAI-IG'" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
And then there is the myth of Joe Clark! http://jimthatcher.com. Jim Accessibility Consulting: http://jimthatcher.com/ 512-306-0931 -----Original Message----- From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Joe Clark Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 3:10 PM To: WAI-GL Subject: Re: Exploding the myth of automated accessibility checking >> It's quite a devastating analysis and calls into question the WCAG >> Working Group's interest in making as many guidelines as possible >> machine-checkable. > > I thought the requirement was to make guidelines testable, not machine- > checkable. The Working Group is resistant to guidelines that require human checking, e.g., document semantics. In fact, a co-chair simply dismissed the consensus of leading outside experts-- which is typical behaviour for this Working Group, but if that's the way you look at human-testable factors, of course I'm going to assume you'd really prefer to make "as many guidelines as possible machine-checkable." If I'm wrong about that, let's turn it around. Would you mind terribly if I worked on making as many guidelines as possible human-checkable? How about 100%? You wouldn't have a maker of testing software at such a high level in this group if it were just another expendable thing you really didn't care much about one way or another. Let us get real here, please. -- Joe Clark | joeclark@joeclark.org Accessibility <http://joeclark.org/access/> --This. --What's wrong with top-posting?
Received on Tuesday, 9 August 2005 02:45:48 UTC