- From: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 16:47:14 +0200
- To: Chris Ridpath <chris.ridpath@utoronto.ca>
- Cc: public-wai-ert@w3.org
Hi Chris, The counter argument to this usage of the confidence value, is that it should be part of the test description (rather than the result description). Regards, Shadi Chris Ridpath wrote: > The confidence property is useful when applied to an accessibility test > result. Some tests have a high confidence that the result is correct > while other tests have a low confidence that the result is correct. > > For example a test that looks for an alt attribute on an image element > will have a high confidence that the result is correct. > > A test that tries to determine if the alt text is appropriate for an > image with give a result that has a low confidence is correct. > > It's useful to know how confident the test result is. Tests with a high > confidence level that fail are more likely to need user intervention > while tests with a low confidence level that fail are less likely to > need user intervention. This is useful information when trying to decide > which accessibility problems really exist and need fixing. > > I think the confidence property should be in EARL and we should specify > what it means. We can use a 3 level scale (high, medium and low) or some > sort of numeric scale. > > Cheers, > Chris > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Shadi Abou-Zahra" <shadi@w3.org> > To: <public-wai-ert@w3.org> > Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 4:41 AM > Subject: do we want to omit the confidence property? > > >> >> Dear Group, >> >> Even though this discussion has come up several times in the past, it >> is worth a revisit in the light of the latest status of the EARL >> schema. The issue is that earl:confidence is not specified in any way >> (not even a recommendation on how to use it) thus making it >> effectively useless. The only argument for keeping this property in >> the schema is to have a consistent extension point for this type of >> information. However, this information will not be interchangeable >> between tools if there is no guidance on how to use the property. >> >> The possible directions are: >> >> 1. keep it as it currently is, even though it is ambiguous >> 2. drop the property as a whole until there is enough interest >> 3. invest time to define a proper usage for the property >> >> What are peoples thoughts on this? >> >> Regards, >> Shadi >> >> >> -- >> Shadi Abou-Zahra Web Accessibility Specialist for Europe | Chair & >> Staff Contact for the Evaluation and Repair Tools WG | World Wide Web >> Consortium (W3C) http://www.w3.org/ | Web Accessibility >> Initiative (WAI), http://www.w3.org/WAI/ | WAI-TIES Project, >> http://www.w3.org/WAI/TIES/ | Evaluation and Repair Tools WG, >> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/ | 2004, Route des Lucioles - 06560, >> Sophia-Antipolis - France | Voice: +33(0)4 92 38 50 64 Fax: >> +33(0)4 92 38 78 22 | >> > > -- Shadi Abou-Zahra Web Accessibility Specialist for Europe | Chair & Staff Contact for the Evaluation and Repair Tools WG | World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) http://www.w3.org/ | Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI), http://www.w3.org/WAI/ | WAI-TIES Project, http://www.w3.org/WAI/TIES/ | Evaluation and Repair Tools WG, http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/ | 2004, Route des Lucioles - 06560, Sophia-Antipolis - France | Voice: +33(0)4 92 38 50 64 Fax: +33(0)4 92 38 78 22 |
Received on Monday, 25 September 2006 14:47:32 UTC