Hi Chris, The counter argument to this usage of the confidence value, is that it should be part of the test description (rather than the result description). Regards, Shadi Chris Ridpath wrote: > The confidence property is useful when applied to an accessibility test > result. Some tests have a high confidence that the result is correct > while other tests have a low confidence that the result is correct. > > For example a test that looks for an alt attribute on an image element > will have a high confidence that the result is correct. > > A test that tries to determine if the alt text is appropriate for an > image with give a result that has a low confidence is correct. > > It's useful to know how confident the test result is. Tests with a high > confidence level that fail are more likely to need user intervention > while tests with a low confidence level that fail are less likely to > need user intervention. This is useful information when trying to decide > which accessibility problems really exist and need fixing. > > I think the confidence property should be in EARL and we should specify > what it means. We can use a 3 level scale (high, medium and low) or some > sort of numeric scale. > > Cheers, > Chris > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Shadi Abou-Zahra" <shadi@w3.org> > To: <public-wai-ert@w3.org> > Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 4:41 AM > Subject: do we want to omit the confidence property? > > >> >> Dear Group, >> >> Even though this discussion has come up several times in the past, it >> is worth a revisit in the light of the latest status of the EARL >> schema. The issue is that earl:confidence is not specified in any way >> (not even a recommendation on how to use it) thus making it >> effectively useless. The only argument for keeping this property in >> the schema is to have a consistent extension point for this type of >> information. However, this information will not be interchangeable >> between tools if there is no guidance on how to use the property. >> >> The possible directions are: >> >> 1. keep it as it currently is, even though it is ambiguous >> 2. drop the property as a whole until there is enough interest >> 3. invest time to define a proper usage for the property >> >> What are peoples thoughts on this? >> >> Regards, >> Shadi >> >> >> -- >> Shadi Abou-Zahra Web Accessibility Specialist for Europe | Chair & >> Staff Contact for the Evaluation and Repair Tools WG | World Wide Web >> Consortium (W3C) http://www.w3.org/ | Web Accessibility >> Initiative (WAI), http://www.w3.org/WAI/ | WAI-TIES Project, >> http://www.w3.org/WAI/TIES/ | Evaluation and Repair Tools WG, >> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/ | 2004, Route des Lucioles - 06560, >> Sophia-Antipolis - France | Voice: +33(0)4 92 38 50 64 Fax: >> +33(0)4 92 38 78 22 | >> > > -- Shadi Abou-Zahra Web Accessibility Specialist for Europe | Chair & Staff Contact for the Evaluation and Repair Tools WG | World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) http://www.w3.org/ | Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI), http://www.w3.org/WAI/ | WAI-TIES Project, http://www.w3.org/WAI/TIES/ | Evaluation and Repair Tools WG, http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/ | 2004, Route des Lucioles - 06560, Sophia-Antipolis - France | Voice: +33(0)4 92 38 50 64 Fax: +33(0)4 92 38 78 22 |Received on Monday, 25 September 2006 14:47:32 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:18:27 GMT