W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org > January 2004

Re: EARL Guideline Pass/Fail Confidence

From: Chris Ridpath <chris.ridpath@utoronto.ca>
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 09:36:51 -0500
Message-ID: <028501c3e4e3$00de8cc0$b040968e@WILDDOG>
To: "Charles McCathieNevile" <charles@w3.org>
Cc: "WAI ER IG List" <w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org>

Yes, the confidence level was not quite right for what I was trying to
describe.

Your suggestion of creating a new class to define partial pass is much
better. Thanks!

Here's what I'm thinking of using for a 'conditional pass' (just a slight
mod of your Partial):

<rdfs:Class
rdf:about=http://www.utoronto.ca/rdf-def/mas-earl#Conditional-Pass>
   <rdfs:subClassOf
rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/EARL/nmg-strawman#Fail"/>
   <rdfs:isDefinedBy
rdf:resource="http://www.utoronto.ca/rdf-def/mas-earl#"/>
   <rdfs:label xml:lang="en">Only passes known problems. Still has potential
problems</rdfs:label>
   <rdfs:comment xml:lang="en">An extension used by the ATRC accessibility
checker to identify partially conforming content</rdfs:comment>
</rdfs:Class>

We're using the term 'known problem' to describe an accessibility problem
that  a software tool can detect. A 'potential problem' is something that a
software tool can not detect - it requires human intervention. These terms
may mean different things to different people and we're looking at other
terminology.

The accessibility barriers posed by the 'potential problems' are as great as
'known problems' so the term 'potential' does not imply that the problem is
any less severe.

We're still mulling over this idea of 'conditional pass'. If a file passes
all the checks for known problems then it likely will be OK. Potential
problems, like missing LONGDESC, are not likely to happen.

Chris


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Charles McCathieNevile" <charles@w3.org>
To: "Chris Ridpath" <chris.ridpath@utoronto.ca>
Cc: "WAI ER IG List" <w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org>
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2004 7:33 AM
Subject: Re: EARL Guideline Pass/Fail Confidence


>
> Hi,
>
> I don't think confidence is a particularly accurate measure. In some cases
we
> are saying "cannotTell" but adding a suspicion, in some cases we are
almost
> certain (some people seem always to be certain :-).
>
> I have no objection to people using a confidence scale, but I suspect that
we
> should look at the use cases and whether we  can say something else more
> useful.
>
> (See also my recent email about the bug in my intro re using rdf:resource
> when it should be rdf:type or something even more complex...)
>
> Cheers
>
> Chaals
>
> On Thu, 15 Jan 2004, Chris Ridpath wrote:
>
Received on Tuesday, 27 January 2004 20:35:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:10:42 GMT