Re: adding accessibility test suite

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Terry Teague" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 7:52 AM
Subject: Re: [Tidy-dev] adding accessibility test suite


> At 6:35 PM +0000 3/15/05, Arnaud Desitter wrote:
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: "Bjoern Hoehrmann" <[email protected]>
>>To: "Arnaud Desitter" <[email protected]>
>>Cc: <[email protected]>
>>Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 6:27 PM
>>Subject: Re: [Tidy-dev] adding accessibility test suite
>>
>>
>>>* Arnaud Desitter wrote:
>>>>A while back, I brushed up somewhat the accessibility test suite
>>>>available at http://www.aprompt.ca/Tidy/accessibilitychecks.html.
>
>
> Cool. I would be interested to know what you "brushed up". I used modified
> versions of these tests myself to test my builds of Tidy.

I attach what I used so far. I stopped doing anything after the 2 August 
2004 on
it as I was getting married a couple of days later. It is essentially what 
is available
on the web with some cleanup to avoid unrelated error messages.
You will notice that quite a few accessibility checks are useless as tidy 
has already
fixed the problems by the time the tests are run. Nothing we do not know.

>>>>In my opinion, it is a good idea to add more test cases so that
>>>>tidy can be tested regularly. And who knows, somebody may even
>
>
> Originally we were adding test cases as we got bug reports, where a
> reasonable test case could be created. I think this process somewhat broke
> down long ago, and stayed that way until recently when you started
> contributing. I agree with you.

On the bright side, tidy can now withstand at least 10^7 random HTML files
generated by mangleme.

>
>
>>>>make the access tests more useful in the future.
>>>>Is anybody against adding them to tidy/test ?
>
>
> No objection from me.
>
>
>>> Under what terms are those tests available? I could not find any
>>> copyright or licence information on the website and the .zip file
>>> seems to be broken.
>>
>>The short answer is that I don't know. I don't remember how I got
>>the test suite. I must have written a quick script to collect the pages
>>and then extracted the HTML and, finally, massaged it somewhat.
>
>
> Not sure either, but asking the right people should get an answer. Re the
> broken zip file - we can get that fixed if it is broken, I know I have
> various archive versions of the test cases that I got directly from the
> author (and checking my Emails, apparently between the 2 of us we had
> problems with zip files we exchanged with each other through EMail).
>
>
>>AFAIK, this test suite has been written by the same guys that wrote
>>"access.c" so the license should be the same.
>>It is not clear to me how "access.c" came to be in tidy. Surely, you
>>must know. I looked in the mail archive but details are sparse.
>
>
> I was the person who worked with the original authors (Mike Lam and Chris
> Ridpath at the Adaptive Technology Resource Centre at the University of
> Toronto) to integrate the code into Tidy.
>
> The last EMail conversation I had with them was about 6 months ago, and 
> was
> related to the following :
>
>>You may know that there is a new set of accessibility guidelines under
>>development, the WCAG version 2. These guidelines have many differences 
>>over
>>the old ones and the accessibility checks in Tidy should be updated. The
>>date for release of the new guidelines is first quarter 2005.
>
>
> I am copying them directly on this EMail (although I believe they also
> subscribe to the tidy-dev mailing list), for their opinions on the above
> matters.
>
>
> Regards, Terry
>

Regards,