W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > October to December 2001


From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2001 02:03:11 -0500 (EST)
To: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>
cc: Web Content Guidelines <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0112020201440.22402-100000@tux.w3.org>
I don't think it is useful for us to do a hypothetical assessment - I would
prefer that we assume for now that we don't know, but that we don't have
sufficient grounds to accept or reject something based on how well the
requirement is specified (as opposed to whether it deals with something that
is an accessibility requirement) until we have done the testing.



On Fri, 30 Nov 2001, Jason White wrote:

  Charles McCathieNevile writes:
   > So how do we define "knowledge of the relevant tech and test methods"? i.e.
   > how do people qualify to have their opinions considered or not in weighing up
   > whether 80% agree?
  There are two answers to this question which emerged from today's teleconference:

  1. Initially, the question of whether 80% or more of informed
     evaluators would agree, is to be decided hypothetically by the
     working group: do we think that 8 out of 10 testers familiar with
     the relevant language/format specification(s), when given the content,
     would agree on whether or not the checkpoint had been met.

  2. Later, of course, the issue will be decided by assessing the
     results of usability testing, in which actual content evaluations
     will be carried out in application of the guidelines.

Charles McCathieNevile    http://www.w3.org/People/Charles  phone: +61 409 134 136
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative     http://www.w3.org/WAI    fax: +1 617 258 5999
Location: 21 Mitchell street FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011, Australia
(or W3C INRIA, Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France)
Received on Sunday, 2 December 2001 02:03:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:39 UTC