W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wai-evaltf@w3.org > January 2012

Re: EvalTF discussion 5.5

From: Michael S Elledge <elledge@msu.edu>
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 13:15:06 -0500
Message-ID: <4F0DD1AA.6040007@msu.edu>
To: "Velleman, Eric" <evelleman@bartimeus.nl>, "Boland Jr, Frederick E." <frederick.boland@nist.gov>
CC: Eval TF <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
Hi Eric (Tim, everyone)--

I agree with you. It seems that another criteria (along with 
"incidental") could be "systemic," when an error is repeated throughout 
the application. To me, a systemic error would generally be of greater 
consequence than an incidental error. This may also get at the question 
of barrier recognition. For example, finding a systemic error would 
reduce the need for checking the entire site for that problem. As for 
defining a systemic error, perhaps three instances would be sufficient?

Mike

On 1/11/2012 9:01 AM, Velleman, Eric wrote:
> Hi Frederick,
>
> Yes agree, but I think we can have both discussions at the same time. So:
> 1. How do we define an error margin to cover non-structuraal errors?
> 2. How can an evaluator determine the impact of an error?
>
> I could imagine we make a distinction between structural and incidental errors. The 1 failed alt-attribute out of 100 correct ones would be incidental... unless (and there comes the impact):
>    a) it is a navigation element
>    b) the alt-attribute is necessary for the understanding of the information / interaction
>    c) other impact related thoughts?
>    d) there is an alternative
>
> We could set the acceptance rate for incidental errors. Example: the site would be totally conformant, but with statement that for alt-attributes, there are 5% incidental fails.
> This also directly relates to conformance in WCAG2.0 specifically section 5 Non-interference.
>
> Eric
>
>
>
> ________________________________________
> Van: Boland Jr, Frederick E. [frederick.boland@nist.gov]
> Verzonden: woensdag 11 januari 2012 14:32
> Aan: Velleman, Eric
> CC: Eval TF
> Onderwerp: RE: EvalTF discussion 5.5
>
> As a preamble to this discussion, I think we need to define more precisely ("measure"?) what an "impact" would be (for example, impact to whom/what and what specifically are the consequences of said impact)?
>
> Thanks Tim
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Velleman, Eric [mailto:evelleman@bartimeus.nl]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 4:15 AM
> To: public-wai-evaltf@w3.org
> Subject: EvalTF discussion 5.5
>
> Dear all,
>
> I would very much like to discuss section 5.5 about Error Margin.
>
> If one out of 1 million images on a website fails the alt-attribute this could mean that the complete websites scores a fail even if the "impact" would be very low. How do we define an error margin to cover these non-structural errors that have a low impact. This is already partly covered inside WCAG 2.0. But input and discussion would be great.
>
> Please share your thoughts.
> Kindest regards,
>
> Eric
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 11 January 2012 18:18:35 GMT

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