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

AW: Discussion 5.5

From: Kerstin Probiesch <k.probiesch@googlemail.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 15:40:39 +0100
To: "'Velleman, Eric'" <evelleman@bartimeus.nl>, "'Alistair Garrison'" <alistair.j.garrison@gmail.com>, "'Eval TF'" <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
Message-ID: <4f182b31.11840e0a.4c0a.2bf4@mx.google.com>
Hi all,

it's a serious problem I think. When thinking about Conformance Level an
error margin is not possible, but indeed a good evaluator might always find
something - probably not when evaluating a small site.

One problem here for me is the relying on pages as whole. When testing pages
as whole the Conformance Level will come in. Will the Conformance Level also
comes in, when an evaluation is a walk through? Or will it then be possible
to have pass/fail and something like "near by", which we should define
wisely. And of course there shouldn't be lots of "near bys" It's a bit as
Michael suggested in one mail.

Best

Kerstin



> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Velleman, Eric [mailto:evelleman@bartimeus.nl]
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 19. Januar 2012 15:24
> An: Alistair Garrison; Eval TF
> Betreff: 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 14:40:27 GMT

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