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

Re: Requirements draft - objectivity

From: Denis Boudreau <dboudreau@accessibiliteweb.com>
Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2011 22:21:49 -0400
Message-id: <C9700BEB-D2F5-4FA1-94BB-2E50ABE9CC7C@accessibiliteweb.com>
To: Eval TF <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
Hello all,

I think there shouldn't be a problem talking about "objectivity" when we deal with normalization. 

After all, standards should be measurable and therefore, objective. If we feel better using "agreed interpretations" it's all fine by me because I can relate to that as well. 

But one way or another, we'll have to come up with these "agreed interpretations" and that, my friends, based on 10 years or so of watching divergent accessibility experts expressing different opinions on the subject, leads me to think it will not be easy! ;p

It could probably mean going through all the sufficient techniques and common failures and, for each and every one of them, come up with a list of "agreed interpretations" that all actually work out when common tests are being performed to measure the compliance to a specific success criteria.

Looking forward to *very interesting discussions* here... =)



On 2011-09-14, at 6:09 AM, Detlev Fischer wrote:

> 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 Monday, 19 September 2011 02:22:43 UTC

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