Official testers Re: Use Case Scenarios for EARL

On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 04:36:33 +1000, Paul Walsh <paulwalsh@segalamtest.com>  
wrote:

>> If this is the case, then it won't necessarily add much more value
>> to its current use, as it will not actually prove anything.
> Shadi replied
> True. The intent is not to *prove* accessibility but provide more
> credibility and granularity than the logos. Please also see:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert/2005Apr/0016.html

An then Paul replied
> Understood - it is wise to ascertain how much creditability it
> provides vs the amount of time and resource it uses to produce the
> process and make it happen to ensure it is cost effective and a worth
> while exercise. My *personal* opinion is that this is masking a problem
> with a stick plaster - i.e. the necessity to have an officially
> recognised roster of accessibility conformance auditors.

I've seen that path tried, and I haven't seen it work very well. This is  
one of the reasons why I think EARL is a step forward. It provides us with  
a way to measure how well any testers are actually doing, compared with  
others. (This is true both for tools and for people). And thus we don't  
need to choose the testers in advance and stick with them (as you have to  
for an officially recognised roster) - you can analyse how a given tester  
compares to those whose results you trust, on an ongoing basis, assuming  
there is some minimal overlap in what they test. This means that it makes  
more sense to invest in some redundant testing (which is in any case  
useful) and simple query tools that compare results than it does to invest  
in an infrastructure for selecting and offically approving testers (which  
generally involves a bunch of people and eats a lot of money before it is  
possible to have any sort of quality control...).

I actually think this is getting off the topic, but perhaps it just falls  
more into the business case discussion we had with the EO group than it  
does in the technical work which is what generally appeals to me...

cheers

Chaals

-- 
Charles McCathieNevile                      Fundacion Sidar
charles@sidar.org   +61 409 134 136    http://www.sidar.org

Received on Tuesday, 5 April 2005 13:06:25 UTC