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

Re: Aspects of an evaluator

From: Peter Korn <peter.korn@oracle.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 11:17:38 -0700
Message-ID: <4FE36542.4090008@oracle.com>
To: Alistair Garrison <alistair.j.garrison@gmail.com>
CC: Eval TF <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
Alistair,

If I am the only person involved in creating my own, fair sized website 
(too large to feasibly evaluate every single page, being as it is 
programmatically generated, etc. etc.), then "self-assessment" means 
that I am also the assessor.  I cannot be an ISO 9001:2000 compliant 
internal auditor.

Separate from that example, I don't understand why EvalTF should be 
concerning itself with ISO 900x in any way.  Looking again at the 
Objective portion of the Work Statement 
<http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/2011/eval/eval-ws#objectives>, our mandate is 
for a technical task (as I understand it): how to select a 
representative sample of a site, how to aggregate results into an 
overall conformance statement, etc.

The question of the independence/inter-dependence of an evaluator from 
the site being evaluated is outside of the scope of our charter.


Peter


On 6/21/2012 11:06 AM, Alistair Garrison wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> Supporting 1st party assessment is as important to me as supporting 
> 3rd party assessment - which is why I based my proposal on those well 
> documented aspects you would look for in an internal auditor for ISO 
> 9001:2000.
>
> Maybe, for clarity, it should have been 'not associated in their day 
> to day role with' - I think you have read 'associated' in the same 
> light as 'independent'.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> Alistair
>
> On 21 Jun 2012, at 19:36, Peter Korn wrote:
>
>> Alistair,
>>
>> It wasn't clear to me that this was the outcome of our meeting.
>>
>> Reviewing the EvalTF Work Statement 
>> <http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/2011/eval/eval-ws>, the first sentence of 
>> the Objective reads (*/emphasis added/*): "objective of Eval TF is to 
>> develop an internationally harmonized methodology for evaluating the 
>> conformance of websites to WCAG 2.0,/*that supports different 
>> contexts, such as for self-assessment or third-party evaluation*/ of 
>> small or larger websites".
>>
>> If the methodology is to support self-assessment, then it cannot 
>> define the evaluator as be different from the 
>> developer/maintainer/accessibility-expert for the site.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Peter
>>
>> On 6/21/2012 10:02 AM, Alistair Garrison wrote:
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> In today's telecon, we discussed terms like independent when talking about evaluations.  The outcome appeared to be that what was needed was in fact a better definition for 'evaluator'.
>>>
>>> I'm not going to propose the whole definition for 'evaluator', however, just two aspects which we might consider including in the definition:
>>>
>>> Aspect 1) (of an evaluator) someone who is not responsible for the accessibility of the website being evaluated.
>>> Aspect 2) (of an evaluator) someone who is not associated with developing and maintaining the website or its content.
>>>
>>> Thoughts…
>>>
>>> All the best
>>>
>>> Alistair
>>
>> -- 
>> <oracle_sig_logo.gif> <http://www.oracle.com/>
>> Peter Korn | Accessibility Principal
>> Phone: +1 650 5069522 <tel:+1%20650%205069522>
>> 500 Oracle Parkway | Redwood City, CA 94065
>> <green-for-email-sig_0.gif> <http://www.oracle.com/commitment> Oracle 
>> is committed to developing practices and products that help protect 
>> the environment
>>
>>
>

-- 
Oracle <http://www.oracle.com>
Peter Korn | Accessibility Principal
Phone: +1 650 5069522 <tel:+1%20650%205069522>
500 Oracle Parkway | Redwood City, CA 94065
Green Oracle <http://www.oracle.com/commitment> Oracle is committed to 
developing practices and products that help protect the environment
Received on Thursday, 21 June 2012 18:18:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:52:14 GMT