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

Re: "objective" clarified

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 15:19:10 -0500 (EST)
To: Gregg Vanderheiden <GV@TRACE.WISC.EDU>
cc: "GLWAI Guidelines WG (GL - WAI Guidelines WG)" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0112031511110.436-100000@tux.w3.org>
Hi all,

I don't think the group are bonkers (I think I am part of the group, but any
lapses on my part shouldn't be ascribed to everyone...)

I think that for an initial assessment the threshold of 80% is fine, and I
think that as we get closer to making this a final version we should be
lifting that requirement to about 90 or 95%. However, I don't think that it
is very useful to think about whether people would agree in the absence of
test cases. There are some things where it is easy to describe the test in
operational terms. There are others where it is difficult to descibe the test
in operational terms, but it is easy to get substantial agreement. (The
famous "I don't know how to define illustration, but I recognise it when I
see it" explanation).

It seems to me that the time spent in trying to imagine whether we would
agree on a test would be more usefully spent in generating test cases, which
we can thenuse to very quickly find out if we agree or not. The added value
is that we then have those available as examples to show people - when it
comes to people being knowledgeable of the tests and techniques they will
have the head start of having seen real examples and what the working group
thought about them as an extra guide.



On Mon, 3 Dec 2001, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:

  Hi everyone

  Glad to see such lively discussion around objective.

[and some discussion]
Received on Monday, 3 December 2001 15:19:11 UTC

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