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

RE: "objective" clarified

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <GV@TRACE.WISC.EDU>
Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2001 15:39:14 -0600
To: "'GLWAI Guidelines WG \(GL - WAI Guidelines WG\)'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <002f01c180f9$f2ae3640$066fa8c0@750>
This is somewhat circular.

Something that is not objective is not testable.  At least not testable
fairly.

But I agree that we leave defining "objective" to dictionaries and just
work on the testability of our guidelines / checkpoints / success
criteria.

Gregg
-- ------------------------------ 
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 
Professor - Human Factors 
Dept of Ind. Engr. - U of Wis. 
Director - Trace R & D Center 
Gv@trace.wisc.edu <mailto:Gv@trace.wisc.edu>, <http://trace.wisc.edu/> 
FAX 608/262-8848  
For a list of our listserves send “lists” to listproc@trace.wisc.edu
<mailto:listproc@trace.wisc.edu> 


-----Original Message-----
From: Charles McCathieNevile [mailto:charles@w3.org] 
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2001 9:52 PM
To: Cynthia Shelly
Cc: Kynn Bartlett; GV@TRACE.WISC.EDU; GLWAI Guidelines WG (GL - WAI
Guidelines WG)
Subject: RE: "objective" clarified

Right. And I was under the impression that what we actually agreed to
was
that requirements had to be testable. So it seems we are on the right
track.

cheers

Charles

On Thu, 6 Dec 2001, Cynthia Shelly wrote:

  I don't think it actually matters that a guideline is objective, as
long
  as it is testable.  I think Gregg's original definition is a long way
  towards a definition of "testable".
Received on Sunday, 9 December 2001 16:41:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:17 GMT