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

RE: Discussion 5.5

From: Léonie Watson <lwatson@nomensa.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 14:34:20 +0000
To: "Velleman, Eric" <evelleman@bartimeus.nl>, Alistair Garrison <alistair.j.garrison@gmail.com>, Eval TF <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
Message-ID: <D4219A0ECCAE794C9ED7DC6F5A4C0CD537B3B02E28@jupiter.intranet.nomensa.com>
	Apologies if this question has been asked before. What is our definition of an error? Is it a success criteria that has been verified within the sample, but which may not have been applied throughout the entire site? Or is it a success criteria that has not been met at all, but where the result has little or no impact on the user?

Léonie.


 


-- 
Nomensa - humanising technology

Léonie Watson, Director of Accessibility & Web Development
tel: +44 (0)117 929 7333
mob: +44 (0)792 116 8551
twitter: @we_are_Nomensa @LeonieWatson

Nomensa Email Disclaimer: http://www.nomensa.com/email-disclaimer

-----Original Message-----
From: Velleman, Eric [mailto:evelleman@bartimeus.nl] 
Sent: 19 January 2012 14:24
To: Alistair Garrison; Eval TF
Subject: RE: Discussion 5.5

This could mean that it is practicly impossible to reach full conformance with WCAG2.0... A good evaluator can always find an error somewhere is my experience. Whe may have to accept that people make errors. Everything has an error margin. Even safety requirements have an error margin... Even the chip industry, LCD panels have error margins..
Kindest regards,

Eric



________________________________________
Van: Alistair Garrison [alistair.j.garrison@gmail.com]
Verzonden: donderdag 19 januari 2012 14:19
Aan: Velleman, Eric; Eval TF
Onderwerp: Re: Discussion 5.5

Dear Eric, Eval TF,

I vote not to allow error margins - for the reason I outlined in my previous email on this subject.

Instead, I would continue to support a simple disclaimer such as "The evaluator has tried their hardest to minimise the margin for error by actively looking for all content relevant to each technique being assessed which might have caused a fail."

Occam's razor - simplest is best...

Alistair

On 19 Jan 2012, at 13:58, Velleman, Eric wrote:

> 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
> =========================
>
Received on Thursday, 19 January 2012 14:35:03 GMT

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