W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wai-ert@w3.org > March 2007

Re: Editor's draft comments

From: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 15:16:36 +0100
Message-ID: <45F803C4.8080706@w3.org>
To: Carlos Iglesias <carlos.iglesias@fundacionctic.org>
Cc: public-wai-ert@w3.org


Carlos Iglesias wrote:
>>> * Semiauto: Can be only compound by definition,
>>> main Assertor --> Software
>>> secondary Assertor --> at least one Person and/or Organization, 
>>> whatever else
>> Wrong assumption, it *should* be compound. However, the user 
>> behind a semi-automated tool may not be disclosed in the 
>> report. The tool could be a Single Assertor but the mode of 
>> testing was semi-automatic.
> So the idea is that I know that a tool has the main responsability and I know that there's some human/s behind with a secundary role, but I may have no detail about the human/s behind, isn't it.

Correct. See also the other thread on semiauto.

>>> * Mixed: Can be only compound (and must include Persons, or 
>>> Organizations, AND Software),
>>> main Assertor --> whatever;
>>> secondary Assertor --> whatever
>>> Problems --> If there is no detailed information by 
>> definition, how could I know who or what is the mainAssertor?
>> As discussed above, mixed does not imply a Compound Assertor. 
>> A Single Assertor could (by definition) be a whole 
>> organisation as one single entity. How this single entity 
>> carried out the testing is actually a separate question.
> A mixed result implies a combination of persons AND tools

Combination of persons and/or tools. It is actually unknown, it could be 
humans only, tools only, or other combinations.

> so just an Organization assertor can't give way to a mixed result unless the general thinking is that an Organization Assertor could also implicitly include Software tools, is this the general thinking?

No, and organisation could also carry out purely manual testing. The 
report *may* disclose the mode in which the organisation carried out the 
tests (manual, automatic, semiauto, etc) or it may just say "mixed".

> Make sense, nevertheless I think that, with the exception of the heuristic mode, there are certain rules that restrict the correct usage of Assertors/results combinations. (e.g the main Assertor in a semiauto result can't be a Person, etc.)

Yes, there are probably such implicit restrictions. In other words, 
combinations that don't make sense as you highlight above. Do we want to 
make these restrictions explicit? Not sure about the benefit vs 
complexity in going down this road...

>>> * Additional question:
>>> - Should we define Organization as a type of Compound 
>> Assertor not as a single one? After all, an Organization is a 
>> group of people and other resources (software included?), isn't it?
>> It is a *single entity*. Do you have suggestions on how I can 
>> improve the wording to clarify this meaning?
> It's allways hard to explain what an entity is, what about "that which is perceived or known or inferred to have its own distinct existence (living or nonliving)" ;o)
> Now seriously, I don't have any great idea apart from the emphasis and/or maybe same examples next, something like "(e.g. Person, Organization, etc.)"

I will take a pass at this and try to emphasize the "entity" part.


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 Wednesday, 14 March 2007 14:16:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:55:55 UTC