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

Re: Requirements draft - objectivity

From: Detlev Fischer <fischer@dias.de>
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 09:11:15 +0200
Message-ID: <4E7ADF93.3080304@dias.de>
CC: "public-wai-evaltf@w3.org" <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
Am 21.09.2011 22:52, schrieb Kerstin Probiesch:
> Hi Detlev, all,
>
> an explanation in German:
> http://complianceonline.de/material/wiki/compliance-uebersetzung-bedeutung/
>
> Kerstin

That's interesting. I realise that the contents of the text are 
inaccessible to most (unless they trust a translation tool) but the 
interesting point here is that in the view of the author, compliance 
involves more than just a statement of conformance: it means the 
installation of systematic provisions within an organisation that will 
ensure that compliance can be sustained in the future as best as possible.
("Compliance meint die Schaffung von organisatorischen Vorkehrungen im 
Unternehmen, um systematisch die Einhaltung von Normen soweit wie 
möglich zu garantieren.")

While I am sure that everyone here agrees that this is desirable, my 
understanding so far is that our methodology is focused on one 
particular test of a site and would leave the broader context of 
assuring sustainable accessiblitiy to an approach determined by the 
organisation.

Some members of the group have raised the question before wheter we 
should attempt to define an 'end-to-end' method, and I am aware that I 
promised a draft section on 'scope' which I hole to supply later today.

Detlev



>
> 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
>> Geschäftsführung: 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
>> Geschäftsführer: Thomas Lilienthal, Michael Zapp
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>>


-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Detlev Fischer PhD
DIAS GmbH - Daten, Informationssysteme und Analysen im Sozialen
Geschäftsführung: 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
Geschäftsführer: Thomas Lilienthal, Michael Zapp
---------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Thursday, 22 September 2011 07:11:51 GMT

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