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

RE: Requirements draft - objectivity

From: <kvotis@iti.gr>
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 09:48:46 +0300
Message-ID: <e5493ccff8f8586d81566806758780fe.squirrel@mail.iti.gr>
To: "Velleman, Eric" <evelleman@bartimeus.nl>
Cc: "Kerstin Probiesch" <k.probiesch@googlemail.com>, "Detlev Fischer" <fischer@dias.de>, "public-wai-evaltf@w3.org" <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
I aggree with the conformance which is also used in WCAG 2.0, EARL,..

Kostas


-------------------
Dr. Konstantinos Votis
Computer Engineer & Informatics,PhD, Msc, MBA
Research Associate
Informatics and Telematics Institute
Centre for Research and Technology Hellas
6th Klm. Charilaou - Thermi Road
P.O. BOX 60361 GR - 570 01
Thessaloniki &#8211; Greece
Tel.: +30-2311-257722
Fax : +30-2310-474128
E-mail : kvotis@iti.gr




 Hi all,
>
> I prefer conformance. It sounds nicer and it is also widely used in
> WCAG2.0.
>
> Eric
>
> ________________________________________
> Van: public-wai-evaltf-request@w3.org [public-wai-evaltf-request@w3.org]
> namens Kerstin Probiesch [k.probiesch@googlemail.com]
> Verzonden: woensdag 21 september 2011 22:52
> Aan: Detlev Fischer
> CC: public-wai-evaltf@w3.org
> Onderwerp: Re: Requirements draft - objectivity
>
> Hi Detlev, all,
>
> an explanation in German:
> http://complianceonline.de/material/wiki/compliance-uebersetzung-bedeutung/
>
> Kerstin
>
> Am 21.09.2011 um 22:16 schrieb Detlev Fischer <fischer@dias.de>:
>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> By now I guess no one will be surprised that I agree with Vivienne here.
>> As I have said before, I have yet to see the "100% compliant site" (a
>> real CMS-based site out there, not three hand-knitted pages). Show me
>> one and I'll be all over it like a truffle pig. Since, as I like to
>> maintain, this thing does not exist, a conformance test that fails
>> practically every site out there seems kind of pointless to me.
>>
>> Denis, you use the term 'compliance'. Is there a (perhaps subtle)
>> difference between compliance and conformance? (I guess we deal with
>> conformance here). To my non-native ear, conformance sounds as if it
>> would allow a wee bit more leeway in the sense of 'being not quite
>> there, but nearly'. Compliance sounds more forbidding, somehow.
>>
>> Detlev
>>
>> PS: Should you not have felt miffed by my impromptu alt text exercise
>> (Carter image), I'd be glad to receive a few more replies to that (I
>> have a few already). I forgot to say that will process incoming replies
>> anonymously - as I said, the point is not to compete here, just to take
>> a practical example of a SC that is kind of hard to do in a replicable
>> manner, and get an idea of the variance of ratings based on a real world
>> case.
>>
>> Quoting Denis Boudreau <dboudreau@accessibiliteweb.com>:
>>
>>> Hi Vivienne,
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2011-09-18, at 10:39 PM, Vivienne CONWAY wrote:
>>>
>>>> I think we need a way of demonstrating intent and recognizing
>>>> progress.  I'm thinking that a website that is 80% of the way towards
>>>> compliance is showing considerable more effort than the one that is
>>>> only 10% of the way there.  How to measure this is the difficult part.
>>>>  A static web site with limited number of pages and no multimedia
>>>> content is going to find it much easier to reach WCAG 2.0 AAA than a
>>>> big complex or media-rich site.
>>>
>>> DB: I guess it all depends whether you want to "celebrate
>>> accessibility", or "validate compliance".
>>>
>>> When you want to celebrate accessibility. you will be interested in
>>> recognizing progress. After all, every little fixes count towards
>>> meeting the very general goal that is accessible content.
>>>
>>> When you're concerned about compliance, in my view, you should not care
>>> about whether or not people are almost right. they either are, or
>>> they're not. So in such a case, being 80% of the way there or only 10%
>>> is the same thing. As long as you're not 100% there, it's unacceptable.
>>>
>>> Please do not see this as being dogmatic. It's just that there is no
>>> such thing as a percentage of compliance. You either comply or you
>>> don't. The closer you are of course, the easier it will be to get
>>> there, but until everything is perfect, it just cannot be considered
>>> compliant.
>>>
>>> /Denis
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> _______________________________________
>>>> From: public-wai-evaltf-request@w3.org
>>>> [public-wai-evaltf-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Denis Boudreau
>>>> [dboudreau@accessibiliteweb.com]
>>>> Sent: Monday, 19 September 2011 10:21 AM
>>>> To: Eval TF
>>>> Subject: Re: Requirements draft - objectivity
>>>>
>>>> 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... =)
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>> /Denis
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> CRICOS IPC 00279B
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>> Detlev Fischer PhD
>> DIAS GmbH - Daten, Informationssysteme und Analysen im Sozialen
>> Gesch?ftsf?hrung: Thomas Lilienthal, Michael Zapp
>>
>> Telefon: +49-40-43 18 75-25
>> Mobile: +49-157 7-170 73 84
>> Fax: +49-40-43 18 75-19
>> E-Mail: fischer@dias.de
>>
>> Anschrift: Schulterblatt 36, D-20357 Hamburg
>> Amtsgericht Hamburg HRB 58 167
>> Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Thomas Lilienthal, Michael Zapp
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 22 September 2011 06:49:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:52:12 GMT