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

Re: Requirements draft - objectivity

From: Detlev Fischer <fischer@dias.de>
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 12:09:48 +0200
Message-ID: <4E707D6C.2070103@dias.de>
To: public-wai-evaltf@w3.org
DF: Just one point on objective, objectivity:
This is not an easy concept - it relies on a proof protocol. For 
example, you would *map* a page instance tested to a documented 
inventory of model cases to establish how you should rate it against a 
particular SC. Often this is easy, but there are many "not ideal" cases 
to be dealt with.
So "objective" sounds nice but it does not remove the problem that there 
will be cases that do not fit the protocol, at which point a human (or 
group, community) will have to make an informed mapping decision or 
extend the protocol to include the new instance. I think "agreed 
interpretation" hits it nicely because there is the community element in 
it which is quite central to WCAG 2.0 (think of defining accessibility 


> Comment (KP): I understand the Denis' arguments. The more I think about
> this: neither "unique interpretation" nor "agreed interpretation" work very
> well. I would like to suggest "Objective". Because of the following reason:
> It would be one of Criteria for the quality of tests and includes Execution
> objectivity, Analysis objectivity and Interpretation objectivity. If we will
> have in some cases 100% percent fine, if not we can discuss the "tolerance".
> I would suggest:
> (VC)  I'm still contemplating this one.  I can see both arguments as plausible.
> I'm okay with 'objectivity' but think it needs more explanation i.e. who defines
> how objective it is?
Received on Wednesday, 14 September 2011 10:10:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:40:18 UTC