- From: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 11:12:17 +0200
- To: public-wai-evaltf@w3.org
I agree with this approach too. The default (and ideal) would be to check all pages. In cases where this is not practically feasible we provide a robust sampling procedure. This probably affects several sections, including the introduction, though rather editorially only. Regards, Shadi On 25.6.2012 19:47, RichardWarren wrote: > Michael, > We are not suggesting "all or nothing" . > We are saying that the preferred method is to validate all pages, but if > this is too large a task (which for typically large sites it will be) then > here is a sampling procedure which will ensure that all important elements > are covered. > > Thus owners of small sites that want to check their compliance can skip the > sampling process and get straight on with the method of validating their > site. > > Richard > > -----Original Message----- From: Michael S Elledge > Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 3:34 PM > To: public-wai-evaltf@w3.org > Cc: Alistair Garrison ; RichardWarren ; Eval TF > Subject: Re: All pages > > Hi All-- > > I agree with Alistair. We nearly always test a sample of pages in a > website. Although it would be ideal to test every page in a site, it is > impractical because of time and cost, especially if it is performed > manually. Many people reading our methodology will be looking to apply > it to their reviews, which out of necessity will be based on sampling. > The alternative, relying solely on automated checkers to review a medium > to large site in its entirety, I think we can all agree is not a viable > alternative, even with their improvements. > > We spent a significant amount of time describing sampling approaches > early in this process, so I'm surprised that the "all or nothing" > approach is still being debated. I may have missed something along the > way, however, so please forgive me if I did. > > Best regards, > > Mike > > On 6/25/2012 3:08 AM, Alistair Garrison wrote: >> Hi Richard, >> >> Reading the archive I see we have talked around the subject of >> sampling - but not actually whether to evaluate all pages instead of a >> sample. Reading a number of emails, however, it becomes clear that we >> all seem to use some kind of sampling effort - hence its seemingly >> automatic acceptance to this point. >> >> To my mind, there are many reasons for adopting our reasonably >> straight-forward sample-based approach (again we have all mostly done >> something similar for years), even for smaller sites, over evaluating >> all pages. I suppose its lower cost in terms of time / effort - with >> the same actual benefits is one of the top reasons for sampling. >> >> I'm also worried that the changes you suggest (did it also need a >> change to the Requirements docs) at this stage will create a two-tier >> (all or sample) approach, forking our current work and possibly >> opening a big can of worms (like how do you realistically, and with >> very high confidence, find all pages in a website, what exactly is a >> small or medium site, etc...). >> >> I remain to be convinced, but I would be interested to hear the views >> of others. >> >> All the best >> >> Alistair >> >> On 22 Jun 2012, at 12:05, RichardWarren wrote: >> >>> Reason for making the default position to include all pages (entire >>> website) >>> >>> 1) Taking the Internet (WWW) as a whole, the majority of sites are >>> quite small (100 or so pages), typically things like "Mum& Pop" >>> stores, SME profiles, personal or project websites. >>> >>> 2) Where this is practical a full evaluation is more reliable than a >>> sample. >>> >>> 3) Our brief is to deliver an evaluation methodology, not a sampling >>> methodology. >>> >>> 4) Reliable sampling is a complex procedure, if owners of >>> small/medium sites think they have to go through sampling they will >>> give up. >>> >>> 5) Sampling procedure will only be required for large sites so it >>> should be an option. The default should be to evaluate the whole >>> site. If the evaluator feels that is too large a task then s/he >>> should have the option to use a sampling procedure to help manage the >>> evaluation work load. >>> >>> My feeling as that we need to change the order of our text so that >>> sampling is offered as the option, not the full audit. >>> >>> Richard >>> >>> -----Original Message----- From: Alistair Garrison >>> Sent: Friday, June 22, 2012 10:39 AM >>> To: RichardWarren ; Eval TF >>> Subject: All pages >>> >>> Hi Richard, >>> >>> We were not able to debate the agenda item relating to "testing all >>> pages"? Can you just remind me what was behind this issue? >>> >>> All the best >>> >>> Alistair >>> >> >> > -- Shadi Abou-Zahra - http://www.w3.org/People/shadi/ Activity Lead, W3C/WAI International Program Office Evaluation and Repair Tools Working Group (ERT WG) Research and Development Working Group (RDWG)
Received on Tuesday, 26 June 2012 09:12:44 UTC