Thread Subject: Re: StartingdiscussionsontheAccessibilityAPIproposal
This archival content is maintained by WebAIM and NCDAE on behalf of TEITAC and the U.S. Access Board . Additional details on the updates to section 508 and section 255 can be found at the Access Board web site.
From: David Poehlman
Date: Tue, Jan 16 2007 5:13 PM
- Return to this mailing list's archives
- View all messages in this thread
- Next message in thread: Robinson, Norman B - Washington, DC: "Re: StartingdiscussionsontheAccessibilityAPIproposal"
- Previous message in thread: Jim Tobias: "Re: StartingdiscussionsontheAccessibilityAPIproposal"
- Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date
Reading this discussion about test environments puts me in mind of
some work I've done over the past several years. As in any test, it
is possible to make a good test tool cheat on the test meaning, you
can taylor the tests. It is not necessary for a tool to make the
kinds of assumptions which wold skew the tests. the tools can be
made to look for and at certain things and report their existance or
lack there of. take spelling and grammar checking for example, they
can be tweaked right? how do they opperate? I can use a tool that
tests for outcome no matter what the end use would be. I do know of
tools though that require certain things because of a belief mistaken
or other wise that without them, accessability is not achieved.
Were I designing requirements for test tools, I'd design a
requirement that they be highly scaleable. A test tool only
automates work so that we can be free to do the stuff needing
judgement. I love it when a test tool repairs stuff.
- Next message in Thread: Robinson, Norman B - Washington, DC: "Re: StartingdiscussionsontheAccessibilityAPIproposal"
- Previous message in Thread: Jim Tobias: "Re: StartingdiscussionsontheAccessibilityAPIproposal"