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: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 14:57:52 +0800
To: Detlev Fischer <fischer@dias.de>, "public-wai-evaltf@w3.org" <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
Message-ID: <8AFA77741B11DB47B24131F1E38227A9B4B3DA876C@XCHG-MS1.ads.ecu.edu.au>
Just thinking - how about "non-critical violations" and "critical violations".  Problem as I see it is forming a consensus about which is which.  Critical of course includes the 4 items that stop conformance as per the WCAG 2.0 conformance statements.  However there are other things that we will consider critical.  Also, you could have a number of non-critical violations which together add up to a critical situation - e.g. if almost all images did not have alt text.  One or two you can deal with (but they should still be encouraged to fix them), but 90% of those on the site is a different matter entirely IMHO.




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: Detlev Fischer [fischer@dias.de]
Sent: Friday, 20 January 2012 1:37 AM
To: public-wai-evaltf@w3.org
Subject: Re: Discussion 5.5

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
>
>
>
>
>

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 Friday, 20 January 2012 07:01:03 GMT

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