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

RE: Discussion 5.5

From: Vivienne CONWAY <v.conway@ecu.edu.au>
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 21:43:33 +0800
To: "Velleman, Eric" <evelleman@bartimeus.nl>, "public-wai-evaltf@w3.org" <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
Message-ID: <8AFA77741B11DB47B24131F1E38227A9B4B3DA8764@XCHG-MS1.ads.ecu.edu.au>
Hi all

I've been reading the discussions so far with great interest.  Personally I have a problem with having a margin for error. A website is either compliant, or it is not compliant.  Saying something is 'almost' or 'sort of' compliant is like saying you are "a little bit pregnant".  Sorry about that. :)

I think as evaluators, we point the website owner to the errors and allow them to fix them, and once the errors are fixed, then we make a compliance statement as a previous writer said that shows the lowest compliance state of  any page on the website.

However in true 'sitting on the fence' style, I would always include a statement on the accessibility page stating that "as far as possible...Please let us know if you find anything we might have missed."


Regards

Vivienne L. Conway, B.IT(Hons), MACS CT
PhD Candidate & Sessional Lecturer, Edith Cowan University, Perth, W.A.
Director, Web Key IT Pty Ltd.
v.conway@ecu.edu.au
v.conway@webkeyit.com
Mob: 0415 383 673

This email is confidential and intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify me immediately by return email or telephone and destroy the original message.
________________________________________
From: Velleman, Eric [evelleman@bartimeus.nl]
Sent: Thursday, 19 January 2012 9:58 PM
To: public-wai-evaltf@w3.org
Subject: Discussion 5.5

Dear all,

For the Telco today:
We have seen a lot of discussion on 5.5 Error Margin. As indicated in the discussion, it also depends on other things like the size of the sample, the complexity of the website and the qualities of the evaluator, use of tools (for collecting pages, making a first check) etc. etc. But we need to be agree on:

Do we allow errors or not?

If not, life is easy
If yes, we need to describe under what conditions

Kindest regards,

Eric

=========================
Eric Velleman
Technisch directeur
Stichting Accessibility
Universiteit Twente

Oudenoord 325,
3513EP Utrecht (The Netherlands);
Tel: +31 (0)30 - 2398270
www.accessibility.nl / www.wabcluster.org / www.econformance.eu /
www.game-accessibility.com/ www.eaccessplus.eu

Lees onze disclaimer: www.accessibility.nl/algemeen/disclaimer
Accessibility is Member van het W3C
=========================

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
Received on Thursday, 19 January 2012 13:49:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:52:13 GMT