W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org > February 2002

Re: EARL in Page Valet

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 10:40:04 -0500 (EST)
To: Nick Kew <nick@webthing.com>
cc: <w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0202041035360.22103-100000@tux.w3.org>
Do you think it would be useful if we had a "warning" property, or do you
think it is beter to make pass/fail assertions and use confidence levels? It
seems to me that there might be a lot of value  in "warning" properties
being seperate since having confidence levels for real assertions is helpful
to be able to deal with conflicting reports.

Alternatively, it might just lead to things getting lost.

Another approach to this would be to work on flagging conformance to
techniques for WCAG, and building profiles of those techniques which enable
you to make in inference that a particular collecction of techniques being
implemented is equivalent to satisfying a checkpoint. failing to implement a
particular technique doesn't necessarily mean failing to implement the
checkpoint, and can help to point the user at the things that might be done.

These two questions could be treated orthogonally, but need not be, as I
figure it...



On Mon, 4 Feb 2002, Nick Kew wrote:

  > (3) I've used predicates (passes|fails) for validation messages, and
  >     suspectAgainst for accessibility warnings.  Next step is to
  >     generate confidence levels from visval, so we can distinguish
  >     between definite problems, and issues flagged for manual inspection.

  Confidence levels now implemented.
Received on Monday, 4 February 2002 10:41:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:01:33 UTC