- From: Nick Kew <nick@webthing.com>
- Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 22:01:43 +0000 (GMT)
- To: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- cc: <w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org>
On Mon, 4 Feb 2002, Charles McCathieNevile wrote: > Do you think it would be useful if we had a "warning" property, or do you > think it is beter to make pass/fail assertions and use confidence levels? It > seems to me that there might be a lot of value in "warning" properties > being seperate since having confidence levels for real assertions is helpful > to be able to deal with conflicting reports. I'm in two minds on this one. At the moment, an accessibility warning with a "Low" confidence level is effectively just a warning. But the purpose it serves is to say "this tool can't tell whether XYZ violates accessibility". A warning is the right thing to present to a human reader, but an automatic system needs to know there are/aren't any such issues. I think for my purposes I'd prefer to stick to the confidence levels scheme, noting that a Low Confidence assertion from Page Valet can be nullified by a contradictory High Confidence assertion from elsewhere, but should not be silently nullified by default. Note that the currently assigned confidence levels for different tests/messages are rather arbitrary, and subject to review. > Alternatively, it might just lead to things getting lost. > > Another approach to this would be to work on flagging conformance to > techniques for WCAG, and building profiles of those techniques which enable > you to make in inference that a particular collecction of techniques being > implemented is equivalent to satisfying a checkpoint. Erm - that sounds like an altogether different project. If it ever happens, I'll be looking to support it as well as, not instead of, WCAG 1.0. -- Nick Kew Site Valet - the mark of Quality on the Web. <URL:http://valet.webthing.com/>
Received on Monday, 4 February 2002 17:01:46 UTC