- From: jake abma <jake.abma@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2020 14:53:30 +0200
- To: Jeanne Spellman <jspellman@spellmanconsulting.com>
- Cc: Silver TF <public-silver@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAMpCG4GUn=Pfj6GfmJsH0VUrJP0k60K53Nf8Jf9F9HL0LGX_Aw@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Jeanne, No time for a bigger response but It is exactly because of the meeting and minutes + example I've written the mail... :-) Jake Op di 8 sep. 2020 om 14:50 schreef Jeanne Spellman < jspellman@spellmanconsulting.com>: > Hi Jake, > > Thanks for raising thoughtful questions. > > We have been looking at these issues in the last couple weeks as we build > out the content and test the new conformance model. Sarah Horton did a lot > of work last week with a spreadsheet model to test the consistency of the > content and look for patterns. > > I recommend reading the minutes from Friday and look at the consistency > spreadsheet. The recommendation we looked at Friday was to roughly define > Outcomes as having an AND relationship with the guidelines (you have to > have [this] Outcome AND [this] Outcome AND [this] Outcome.). There is an > OR relationship with Methods: (you can do it [this] way OR [that way]. > Most of the time, the OR will be technology related and probably wouldn't > need a decision tree. In the case of Alt Text, decision trees have been > valuable tools in the past and could be useful going forward. > > I want to emphasize that this model needs more detailed testing, but as a > model for moving forward to FPWD, this looks viable and I think addresses > both of your questions. Please bring any additional concerns to the > group. It is helpful to keep working out the details of the model. > > 1) Email summary of minutes of 4 September 2020 > <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-silver/2020Sep/0010.html> > > 2) Consistency spreadsheet > <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1_Vu0ix-d-Qrv1wDZYQhfUX6jICE_bRalypp1rtcie8w/#gid=1109648765> > On 9/7/2020 3:46 AM, jake abma wrote: > > > Hi all, > > Just another issue we must have correct or discuss at least before > publication I think. > > -------------------- > > As Guidelines are not normative but (Functional) Outcomes are, they must > cover all benefits for all Functional Groups and Functional Needs we try to > tackle. > > This means the "so... bla bla" statement should be broad enough to cover > all benefits OR a bulleted list might be needed with the benefits (and are > the benefits normative then?). > > -------------------- > > On the other hand, if we use bulleted lists for Benefits, then all methods > and the scoring / tests MUST cover all benefits also otherwise they are not > compatible (Charles Hall commented on this in the functional needs > subgroup). > > -------------------- > > If this is not a "Catch All" for (Functional) Outcomes, we might need to > split / duplicate Outcomes covering different Benefits (?!) > > -------------------- > EXAMPLE 1 > -------------------- > > "Provides semantic structure So can convey a sense of hierarchy" > > In this case the benefits of navigating or locating are not mentioned, > also the Functional Needs are not covered as it's not in the normative text. > > Three options for this example: > > 1. (long sentence, covering all benefits) > > "Provides semantic structure So can convey a sense of hierarchy AND/OR > users can navigate AND/OR users can locate" > > 2. (use of bulleted list) > > "Provides semantic structure > > - So can convey a sense of hierarchy > - So users can navigate > - So users can locate" > > 3. (split in 3 Functional Outcomes) > > > "Provides semantic structure so can convey a sense of hierarchy" > "Provides semantic structure so users can navigate" > "Provides semantic structure so users can locate" > > -------------------- > > This is just an example of the challenge with the Functional Outcome texts > being normative, more examples are not difficult to think of. > > Another option would be to separate the Benefits from the functional > outcome and mention them as something like: " Benefits might be but not > limited to: bla, bla and bla" > > -------------------- > > At the moment I think the Functional Outcomes as we have now are to open > to interpretation and probably will not make it as normative text to be > tested and scored. > > Of course happy to illustrate of dsicus. > > Cheers, > Jake > > > > >
Received on Tuesday, 8 September 2020 12:53:55 UTC