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: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 14:45:01 -0400 (EDT)
To: Jan Richards <jan.richards@utoronto.ca>
cc: <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0207251442440.17015-100000@tux.w3.org>

OK, it makes more sense now.

But I think a better way to approach it is to look slightly differently: If I
am developer X, how many categories do I need to look at. It doesn't matter
if other people are going to lok at the same techniques because they cover
several categories, but it is a pain if one developer needs to look through 9
out of 11 categories, but only finds 20% of each category relevant.

Given that tehre are a lot of developers working on a lot of different things
in different ways, this is something I suspect we'll only manage to figure
out by getting feedback from dozens of users of the document.

Chaals

On Wed, 24 Jul 2002, Jan Richards wrote:

>
>Charles,
>
>Sorry for the confusion. I am NOT saying that a technique is less
>"useful" if it applies to more than one category (in fact it's possibly
>more useful). I AM trying to measure the usefulness of the
>categorization scheme we have chosen. In other words, "is the
>categorization scheme making divisions among the techniques that are
>useful for tool developers". Here are two examples of what I mean:
>
>1. An efficient categorization scheme is male/female (it is ~100%
>efficient in dividing people).
>
>2. An inefficient categorization scheme is "people who drink
>water"/"people who eat bread" (it is inefficient because so many people
>fall into both categories)
>
>If, as we have with ATAG, the efficiency of the categorization scheme is
>low we may want to look at whether it is worthwhile to keep it. Of
>course, my reordering proposal mentions that we might want to use a
>different categorization scheme for each tier - to increase the
>efficiency - but this may be too complicated.
>
>Cheers,
>Jan
>
>Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
>>
>> 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)
>
>
>/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
>
>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 Thursday, 25 July 2002 14:45:03 GMT

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