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

Re: Discussion 5.5

From: Detlev Fischer <fischer@dias.de>
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 17:37:36 +0100
Message-ID: <4F1846D0.9060109@dias.de>
To: public-wai-evaltf@w3.org
Am 19.01.2012 15:34, schrieb Léonie Watson:

> 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.

In my view, an error (or a violation) is any instance on any of the 
pages in the sample that does not meet one of the success criteria. 
Problems beyond the sample nmay exist but here, Alistair's proposal of a 
disclaimer would cover our backs.

Like I said in the teleconference, if we consider some calculation of a 
'margin of error' I think it is necessary to distinguish between 
critical and non-critical (just annoying) errors. The latter might be 
quantified in some way, the former must not.

In many cases, distinguishing between critical and non-critical is easy. 
A keyboard trap or a lightbox dialogue that pops up without screen 
reader users becoming aware of it is a critical violation. A graphical 
navigation element without alt text is one as well. But a few missing 
paragraphs or list tags in editorial content are probably non-critical. 
However, there will be a grey area where the distinction is not so easy. 
But that, in my view, should not lead to the conclusion that the 
distinction cannot or must not be made.

Not sure about terms, though. Is 'error' a good term for non-critical 
violations and 'barrier' a good term for critical violations?

Detlev
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 19 January 2012 16:38:00 GMT

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