W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wai-evaltf@w3.org > November 2011

RE: Difference between consulting and testing

From: Vivienne CONWAY <v.conway@ecu.edu.au>
Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2011 09:31:47 +0800
To: Alistair Garrison <alistair.j.garrison@gmail.com>, Kerstin Probiesch <k.probiesch@googlemail.com>
CC: Eval TF <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
Message-ID: <8AFA77741B11DB47B24131F1E38227A9914FAED37A@XCHG-MS1.ads.ecu.edu.au>

I really agree with Alistair, but hadn't actually give this much thought previously.  I am often asked if I have people who can do the repairs, or that I could recommend so that they can get everything - testing and corrections - done as a 1-stop-shop kind of idea.  What it is tempting to offer the service, as Alistair and Kerstin point out, it can make you no longer the impartial tester you need to be.  I think though it's useful to be able to recommend people who can do the repairs or re-writes as long as they aren't employed by the company.


Vivienne L. Conway
From: Alistair Garrison [alistair.j.garrison@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, 3 November 2011 3:40 AM
To: Kerstin Probiesch
Cc: Eval TF
Subject: Re: Difference between consulting and testing

Hi Kerstin,

I agree...

Organisations offering testing should, to my mind, be independent and impartial - free from any commercial, financial and other pressures which might influence technical judgement (being paid just for the testing they undertake).  They should offer test results, without corrective consultancy.

Precisely the same model for testing organisations is mirrored across many industries.  Take for example car safety testing centres in the UK (MOT centres) - which are independent and impartial - they do testing, but don't offer car services or repair any vehicles.

All the best


On 2 Nov 2011, at 18:11, Kerstin Probiesch wrote:

> Hi all,
> I suggest that we write a small chapter in our methodology about the
> difference between consulting and testing. One important point  I see
> is, that in a consulting process one can recommend those techniques
> which are oder might be the best for a given web page. One can also
> recommend favorised technique/s for an SC. While testing a web page,
> it is not important which techniques are the best or wether a web
> developer has used techniques the consultant favors. The only thing
> which is important is: Is the SC met or not? Therefore it is necessary
> to keep these two "levels" strictly apart and necessary that a tester
> is testing a web page in a dispassionate and sober attitude.
> Thoughts?
> Best
> Kerstin
> -------------------------------------
> Kerstin Probiesch - Freie Beraterin
> Barrierefreiheit, Social Media, Webkompetenz
> Kantstraße 10/19 | 35039 Marburg
> Tel.: 06421 167002
> E-Mail: k.probiesch@gmail.com
> Web: http://www.barrierefreie-informationskultur.de
> XING: http://www.xing.com/profile/Kerstin_Probiesch
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/kprobiesch
> ------------------------------------

This e-mail is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient you must not disclose or use the information contained within. If you have received it in error please return it to the sender via reply e-mail and delete any record of it from your system. The information contained within is not the opinion of Edith Cowan University in general and the University accepts no liability for the accuracy of the information provided.

Received on Thursday, 3 November 2011 01:38:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:40:19 UTC