- From: <kvotis@iti.gr>
- Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 09:48:46 +0300
- To: "Velleman, Eric" <evelleman@bartimeus.nl>
- Cc: "Kerstin Probiesch" <k.probiesch@googlemail.com>, "Detlev Fischer" <fischer@dias.de>, "public-wai-evaltf@w3.org" <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
I aggree with the conformance which is also used in WCAG 2.0, EARL,.. Kostas ------------------- Dr. Konstantinos Votis Computer Engineer & Informatics,PhD, Msc, MBA Research Associate Informatics and Telematics Institute Centre for Research and Technology Hellas 6th Klm. Charilaou - Thermi Road P.O. BOX 60361 GR - 570 01 Thessaloniki – Greece Tel.: +30-2311-257722 Fax : +30-2310-474128 E-mail : kvotis@iti.gr Hi all, > > I prefer conformance. It sounds nicer and it is also widely used in > WCAG2.0. > > Eric > > ________________________________________ > Van: public-wai-evaltf-request@w3.org [public-wai-evaltf-request@w3.org] > namens Kerstin Probiesch [k.probiesch@googlemail.com] > Verzonden: woensdag 21 september 2011 22:52 > Aan: Detlev Fischer > CC: public-wai-evaltf@w3.org > Onderwerp: Re: Requirements draft - objectivity > > Hi Detlev, all, > > an explanation in German: > http://complianceonline.de/material/wiki/compliance-uebersetzung-bedeutung/ > > Kerstin > > Am 21.09.2011 um 22:16 schrieb Detlev Fischer <fischer@dias.de>: > >> 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 >> Gesch?ftsf?hrung: 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 >> Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Thomas Lilienthal, Michael Zapp >> --------------------------------------------------------------- >> > > >
Received on Thursday, 22 September 2011 06:49:15 UTC