Re: Exploding the myth of automated accessibility checking

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