RE: Assessment outcomes

how would you then really describe a pass or fail (by manual review)
after an initial cannotTell returned by a tool?


> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-wai-er-ig-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:w3c-wai-er-ig-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Charles 
> McCathieNevile
> Sent: Freitag, 01. August 2003 01:07
> To: Nick Kew
> Cc: w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Assessment outcomes
> 
> 
> 
> I'd do this differently. The idea is that you make a property called
> nick:accept - it is generally a subclass of earl:fail, 
> because the implied
> result is that the checkpoint has not been met, but in your 
> reporting you
> treat it as you treat an earl:pass.
> 
> This leaves you with earl:cannotTell for your proposed 
> Review, and earl:fail
> for your proposed repair property. And declaring the schema 
> like that means
> that your results are readily interoperable with others - 
> nick:acceptIt might
> be considered fine in the reporting logic for some checkpoints.
> 
> This strikes me as similar to Hixie's desire to subclass fail 
> according to
> whether it was a recorded bug that caused the problem, or 
> consequent on
> something else, or a catastrophic failure, etc...
> 
> my 2 bits
> 
> Chaals
> 
> On Thu, 31 Jul 2003, Nick Kew wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> >Someone mentioning EARL prompts me to post this ...
> >
> >In the course of developing Site Valet Enterprise Edition 2.0,
> >I've integrated a full accessibility audit trail.  Pages will be
> >assessed by an automatic agent, and may (or must, according to
> >local policy) then be reassessed by a human.
> >
> >For the AccessValet desktop tool, it is sufficient to generate
> >a result (Pass/Fail/Unknown/unchecked) and a separate conclusion.
> >But for the sitewide database and audit trail, what is required
> >is a single-word status to appear in query results, etc.  I'm
> >currently using a slightly different vocabulary, that doesn't
> >fit as well as (IMO) it should with EARL:
> >
> > * Pass
> >	No problems with that one
> > * Accept
> >	An informed decision not to comply with some part of the
> >	guidelines.
> > * Review
> >	No conclusion has been reached and the page should be reviewed.
> > * Repair
> >	The page has been reviewed and repairs have been identified.
> >	A much more positive thing than "Fail" to say to users!
> >
> >These are supported by more detailed reports equivalent to the
> >Executive Summary from the desktop product.  But should I be 
> concerned
> >about departing from EARL vocabulary in the above?
> >
> >
> >
> >--
> >Nick Kew
> >
> 
> Charles McCathieNevile  http://www.w3.org/People/Charles  
> tel: +61 409 134 136
> SWAD-E http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/Europe         fax(france): 
> +33 4 92 38 78 22
>  Post:   21 Mitchell street, FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011, Australia    or
>  W3C, 2004 Route des Lucioles, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France
>

Received on Thursday, 31 July 2003 19:16:31 UTC