- From: David Poehlman <david.poehlman@handsontechnologeyes.com>
- Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2005 07:26:13 -0400
- To: "Charles McCathieNevile" <charles@sidar.org>
- Cc: "Gregg Vanderheiden" <gv@trace.wisc.edu>, w3c-wai-ig@w3.org, "'WAI-GL'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Thanks Chaals, It needs to be clarified. I don't have wording at the moment though. -- Jonnie Apple Seed With His: Hands-On Technolog(eye)s On Aug 9, 2005, at 7:12 AM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote: On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 12:00:19 +0200, David Poehlman <david.poehlman@handsontechnologeyes.com> wrote: > There are so many bad examples of machine determined human things > that it is surprising that weare not alloing humans to enter into > the picture or at least permitting them to have equal weight. All > guidelines need to be human testableso that you can if you like use > a simple sentence below. > As I understand it, we already assume that everything is human testable (although some things, like mathematical analysis of colours, are painful to test by hand). The point is that there seems to be a misunderstanding about whether or not we are insisting on everything being machine testable. Joe's mail suggests that he thinks WCAG is insisting on that. Loretta's, Thatch's, Wendy's, mine and others suggest that they thought we were aiming to make as much as possible machine testable (because that makes life easier for people) but that we clearly agree that human testing is the only answer we have to some things at the moment, and we happily recognise that. cheers Chaals -- Charles McCathieNevile Fundacion Sidar charles@sidar.org +61 409 134 136 http://www.sidar.org
Received on Tuesday, 9 August 2005 11:26:26 UTC