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

RE: EvalTF discussion 5.5

From: Martijn Houtepen <m.houtepen@accessibility.nl>
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 09:41:15 +0100
To: "Velleman, Eric" <evelleman@bartimeus.nl>
CC: Eval TF <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
Message-ID: <5B50E0B12DAFE84383FB136330AB51AFB8C02C7F4A@CPMBS-ZH01.kpneol.local>
Hi Eric, TF

I would like to make a small expansion to your list, as follows:

Errors can be incidental unless:

a) it is a navigation element
b) the alt-attribute is necessary for the understanding of the information / interaction / essential to a key scenario or complete path
c) other impact related thoughts?
d) there is an alternative

So an unlabeled (but required) field in a form (part of some key scenario) will be a systemic error.

Martijn

-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: Velleman, Eric [mailto:evelleman@bartimeus.nl] 
Verzonden: woensdag 11 januari 2012 15:01
Aan: Boland Jr, Frederick E.
CC: Eval TF
Onderwerp: RE: EvalTF discussion 5.5

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 Thursday, 12 January 2012 08:45:35 GMT

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