- From: Jamal Mazrui <Jamal.Mazrui@fcc.gov>
- Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2005 09:13:06 -0400
- To: "Mark Gristock" <mark.gristock@jkd.co.uk>, "David Poehlman" <david.poehlman@handsontechnologeyes.com>
- Cc: "Wendy Chisholm" <wendy@w3.org>, "Joe Clark" <joeclark@joeclark.org>, "WAI-IG" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>, "WAI-GL" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
I don't follow. Of course, we seek usability and accessibility. The tests are not ends in themselves but means to this end. By comparison, the U.S. Access Board defines standards for various architectural and technological environments. These standards are usually measurable and specific, and this aids understanding and compliance by industry. Web pages have the advantage of more automated testing by their nature rather than requiring, say, a measuring tape to verify that a doorway is wide enough to accomodate a wheelchair. Jamal -----Original Message----- From: Mark Gristock [mailto:mark.gristock@jkd.co.uk] Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2005 9:03 AM To: Jamal Mazrui; David Poehlman Cc: Wendy Chisholm; Joe Clark; WAI-IG; WAI-GL Subject: RE: Exploding the myth of automated accessibility checking But surely the only accessibility test that actually matters in the end is the user one? Tools are useful in validating work. Each tool has individual strengths and weaknesses - but they aren't what accessibility is about. Nobody got involved in the WAI because they wanted to build sites that passed tests. They want people to be able to use them. The search for a holy grail tool that ticks all the boxes is impossible because the very service is people based. That's why it's accessibility, not validation. _____________________________________________________________________ VirusChecked for Huntsworth plc _____________________________________________________________________
Received on Tuesday, 9 August 2005 13:14:40 UTC