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

Re: Requirements draft - objectivity

From: Kerstin Probiesch <k.probiesch@googlemail.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 07:03:59 +0200
Message-Id: <BDACD601-1BF3-4347-9259-5399EAD11E58@gmail.com>
Cc: "public-wai-evaltf@w3.org" <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
To: Detlev Fischer <fischer@dias.de>
Central question:

Do we want that a tester can manipulate the results?

I don't mean the case that something was overlooked but the case that something was willingly overlooked. Or the other Way round. 

If not we need Objectivity as a Requirement. Just Agreement on something is not enough.

And again: No Objectivity - no standardized methodology.


Via Mobile

Am 14.09.2011 um 12:09 schrieb Detlev Fischer <fischer@dias.de>:

> 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 support)
> Regards,
> Detlev
>> 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 Thursday, 15 September 2011 05:04:34 UTC

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