- From: Detlev Fischer <fischer@dias.de>
- Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 22:16:19 +0200
- To: public-wai-evaltf@w3.org
Hi everyone, By now I guess no one will be surprised that I agree with Vivienne here. As I have said before, I have yet to see the "100% compliant site" (a real CMS-based site out there, not three hand-knitted pages). Show me one and I'll be all over it like a truffle pig. Since, as I like to maintain, this thing does not exist, a conformance test that fails practically every site out there seems kind of pointless to me. Denis, you use the term 'compliance'. Is there a (perhaps subtle) difference between compliance and conformance? (I guess we deal with conformance here). To my non-native ear, conformance sounds as if it would allow a wee bit more leeway in the sense of 'being not quite there, but nearly'. Compliance sounds more forbidding, somehow. Detlev PS: Should you not have felt miffed by my impromptu alt text exercise (Carter image), I'd be glad to receive a few more replies to that (I have a few already). I forgot to say that will process incoming replies anonymously - as I said, the point is not to compete here, just to take a practical example of a SC that is kind of hard to do in a replicable manner, and get an idea of the variance of ratings based on a real world case. Quoting Denis Boudreau <dboudreau@accessibiliteweb.com>: > Hi Vivienne, > > > On 2011-09-18, at 10:39 PM, Vivienne CONWAY wrote: > >> I think we need a way of demonstrating intent and recognizing >> progress. I'm thinking that a website that is 80% of the way >> towards compliance is showing considerable more effort than the one >> that is only 10% of the way there. How to measure this is the >> difficult part. A static web site with limited number of pages and >> no multimedia content is going to find it much easier to reach WCAG >> 2.0 AAA than a big complex or media-rich site. > > DB: I guess it all depends whether you want to "celebrate > accessibility", or "validate compliance". > > When you want to celebrate accessibility. you will be interested in > recognizing progress. After all, every little fixes count towards > meeting the very general goal that is accessible content. > > When you're concerned about compliance, in my view, you should not > care about whether or not people are almost right. they either are, > or they're not. So in such a case, being 80% of the way there or > only 10% is the same thing. As long as you're not 100% there, it's > unacceptable. > > Please do not see this as being dogmatic. It's just that there is no > such thing as a percentage of compliance. You either comply or you > don't. The closer you are of course, the easier it will be to get > there, but until everything is perfect, it just cannot be considered > compliant. > > /Denis > > > >> _______________________________________ >> From: public-wai-evaltf-request@w3.org >> [public-wai-evaltf-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Denis Boudreau >> [dboudreau@accessibiliteweb.com] >> Sent: Monday, 19 September 2011 10:21 AM >> To: Eval TF >> Subject: Re: Requirements draft - objectivity >> >> Hello all, >> >> I think there shouldn't be a problem talking about "objectivity" >> when we deal with normalization. >> >> After all, standards should be measurable and therefore, objective. >> If we feel better using "agreed interpretations" it's all fine by >> me because I can relate to that as well. >> >> But one way or another, we'll have to come up with these "agreed >> interpretations" and that, my friends, based on 10 years or so of >> watching divergent accessibility experts expressing different >> opinions on the subject, leads me to think it will not be easy! ;p >> >> It could probably mean going through all the sufficient techniques >> and common failures and, for each and every one of them, come up >> with a list of "agreed interpretations" that all actually work out >> when common tests are being performed to measure the compliance to >> a specific success criteria. >> >> Looking forward to *very interesting discussions* here... =) >> >> Best, >> >> /Denis >> >> >> >> On 2011-09-14, at 6:09 AM, Detlev Fischer wrote: >> >>> DF: Just one point on objective, objectivity: >>> This is not an easy concept - it relies on a proof protocol. For >>> example, you would *map* a page instance tested to a documented >>> inventory of model cases to establish how you should rate it >>> against a particular SC. Often this is easy, but there are many >>> "not ideal" cases to be dealt with. >>> So "objective" sounds nice but it does not remove the problem that >>> there will be cases that do not fit the protocol, at which point a >>> human (or group, community) will have to make an informed mapping >>> decision or extend the protocol to include the new instance. I >>> think "agreed interpretation" hits it nicely because there is the >>> community element in it which is quite central to WCAG 2.0 (think >>> of defining accessibility support) >>> >>> Regards, >>> Detlev >>> >>>> >>>> Comment (KP): I understand the Denis' arguments. The more I think about >>>> this: neither "unique interpretation" nor "agreed interpretation" >>>> work very >>>> well. I would like to suggest "Objective". Because of the >>>> following reason: >>>> It would be one of Criteria for the quality of tests and includes >>>> Execution >>>> objectivity, Analysis objectivity and Interpretation objectivity. >>>> If we will >>>> have in some cases 100% percent fine, if not we can discuss the >>>> "tolerance". >>>> I would suggest: >>>> >>>> (VC) I'm still contemplating this one. I can see both arguments >>>> as plausible. >>>> I'm okay with 'objectivity' but think it needs more explanation >>>> i.e. who defines >>>> how objective it is? >>>> >>> >> >> This e-mail is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient >> you must not disclose or use the information contained within. If >> you have received it in error please return it to the sender via >> reply e-mail and delete any record of it from your system. The >> information contained within is not the opinion of Edith Cowan >> University in general and the University accepts no liability for >> the accuracy of the information provided. >> >> CRICOS IPC 00279B >> > > > -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Detlev Fischer PhD DIAS GmbH - Daten, Informationssysteme und Analysen im Sozialen Geschäftsführung: Thomas Lilienthal, Michael Zapp Telefon: +49-40-43 18 75-25 Mobile: +49-157 7-170 73 84 Fax: +49-40-43 18 75-19 E-Mail: fischer@dias.de Anschrift: Schulterblatt 36, D-20357 Hamburg Amtsgericht Hamburg HRB 58 167 Geschäftsführer: Thomas Lilienthal, Michael Zapp ---------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Wednesday, 21 September 2011 20:16:54 UTC