- From: Kerstin Probiesch <k.probiesch@googlemail.com>
- Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2011 08:02:13 +0100
- To: Alistair Garrison <alistair.j.garrison@gmail.com>
- Cc: Kerstin Probiesch <k.probiesch@googlemail.com>, Eval TF <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
Hi Alistair, all, for an "institutional" seperating of Consulting and Testing I'm not sure. It has of course advantages. But even a pure testing organisation or a tester might favorize some techniques for others. I see it more in the context of different roles: In the role of a consultant the person it is important to recommend the "best" (usable, ..., ...) sufficient technique for a given web page or process and so on. In the role of a tester it is "just" important wether the SC is met or not. I agree with Alistair in so far as a final test should not provide corrective consultances. Apart from a final test we can have the case of a "consultancy test" as a part of a development process. This one I think can include corrective consultancies but then even when the person is testing he is in the role of a consultant. But it's a thin red line the more a development process comes to the "end". Probably it is as Richard pointed out a bit too early for this. But I think we have to keep it in mind and should describe the problems which could arise when mixing these levels. Best Kerstin Am 02.11.2011 um 19:40 schrieb Alistair Garrison <alistair.j.garrison@gmail.com>: > 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 > > Alistair > > 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 >> ------------------------------------ >> >
Received on Thursday, 3 November 2011 09:00:27 UTC