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

RE: Exploding the myth of automated accessibility checking

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>
Message-ID: <001d01c59c8c$66f42d00$6501a8c0@jtcom2400>

And then there is the myth of Joe Clark! http://jimthatcher.com.

Accessibility Consulting: http://jimthatcher.com/

-----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
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/>
       --What's wrong with top-posting?
Received on Tuesday, 9 August 2005 02:45:48 UTC

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