W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-au@w3.org > July to September 2002

Re: ACTION: technique icon totals

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 11:16:54 -0400 (EDT)
To: Jan Richards <jan.richards@utoronto.ca>
cc: Matt May <mcmay@w3.org>, <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0207241115340.1808-100000@tux.w3.org>

I don't understand your assumption that efficiency is implied by each
technique being useful for exactly one type of tool. Since it is such an
important basis for the rest of your analysis, could you please explain it
further?

Cheers

Charles

On Wed, 24 Jul 2002, Jan Richards wrote:

>
>Matt,
>
>Thanks for providing the raw count. A quick and dirty analysis shows
>that:
>
>In the worst case scenario (0% efficiency), each technique would apply
>to every category, so the categories mean nothing:
>
>   # of icons = # of techniques * # of categories
>
>In the best case scenario (100% efficiency), each technique would belong
>to only one category, so:
>
>   # of icons = # of techniques
>
>So, for the whole document:
>
>> Markup Editing Tools: 96
>> Multimedia Creation Tools: 75
>> Content Management Tools: 78
>> Programming Tools: 55
>> Conversion Tools: 6
>
># of Techniques: 106
>BEST CASE = 106 Icons
>WORST CASE = 530 Icons
>ACTUAL = 310 Icons (~52% efficiency)
>*EFFICIENCY = 100% - (ACTUAL - BEST CASE)/(WORST CASE - BEST CASE)
>
>But some guidelines are more efficient than others:
>
>> G6:
>> Markup Editing Tools: 12
>> Multimedia Creation Tools: 12
>> Content Management Tools: 12
>> Programming Tools: 12
>> Conversion Tools: 0
>> None specified: 2
>
># of Techniques: 12
>BEST CASE = 12 Icons
>WORST CASE = 60 Icons
>ACTUAL = 48 Icons (~25% efficiency)
>
>> G7:
>> Markup Editing Tools: 23
>> Multimedia Creation Tools: 12
>> Content Management Tools: 10
>> Programming Tools: 7
>> Conversion Tools: 0
>> None specified: 1
>
># of Techniques: 28
>BEST CASE = 28 Icons
>WORST CASE = 140 Icons
>ACTUAL = 52 Icons (~79% efficiency)
>
>Unfortunately much of our efficiency is provided by the fact that the
>Conversion Tool category is used just 6 times. Leaving out this
>category, the efficiency scores are:
>
>All techniques: 38%
>G6: 0% (all techniques apply to all 4 categories)
>G7: 71%
>
>--
>Cheers,
>Jan
>
>/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
>
>Jan Richards
>
>User Interface Design Specialist
>Adaptive Technology Resource Centre (ATRC)
>University of Toronto
>
>@: jan.richards@utoronto.ca
>P: (416) 946-7060
>F: (416) 971-2896
>
>/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
>

-- 
Charles McCathieNevile    http://www.w3.org/People/Charles  phone: +61 409 134 136
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative     http://www.w3.org/WAI  fax: +33 4 92 38 78 22
Location: 21 Mitchell street FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011, Australia
(or W3C INRIA, Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France)
Received on Wednesday, 24 July 2002 11:17:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 22 September 2008 15:53:01 GMT