Re: Re[2]: acceptance criteria for new success criteria

I think in a 2.1, we can't mess with the fundamentals...

The concept of testability used in WCAG was arrived at over several years
of the best minds in the industry trying to agree on something that would
work in a non-technology specific standard. There is no group denial here.
It was consensus by diverse and opposed positions on many issues, and it
was something we could all agree with. Not in a blind way but in a settled
way.

Cassandra had truth to share, and a warning about catastrophe. If someone
has some prophesy here about how to save Troy, I'm all ears. But unless
someone gets an attack of genius inspiration, I think the concept of high
inter reliability of experts is as good as we can get.

Otherwise let's start making technology specific Success Criteria, and then
it's easy to say "pass/fail" which us more the WCAG 1 approach, I would say.



Cheers,
David MacDonald



*Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*
Tel:  613.235.4902

LinkedIn
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>

twitter.com/davidmacd

GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald>

www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/>



*  Adapting the web to all users*
*            Including those with disabilities*

If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy
<http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>

On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 9:51 AM, josh@interaccess.ie <josh@interaccess.ie>
wrote:

> I think it sounds good, seems reasonable etc but as Patrick points out
> - not really practically testable in and of itself. It may also lend itself
> to the sway of the court of public opinion or received wisdom (albeit
> esteemed and informed) or worse  to 'group think' and/or lazy assumptions
> about what is best in a given situation.
>
> Who will willingly play Cassandra in a court of her peers? [1]
>
> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassandra
>
> ------ Original Message ------
> From: "lisa.seeman" <lisa.seeman@zoho.com>
> To: "White" <jjwhite@ets.org>
> Cc: "Patrick H. Lauke" <redux@splintered.co.uk>; "w3c-wai-gl@w3.org" <
> w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> Sent: 02/06/2016 13:52:31
> Subject: RE: acceptance criteria for new success criteria
>
>
> I am happy with this standard
>
>
> "
> In practice, the standard was: "participants in the working group, by
> consensus, are confident that 8 out of 10 informed evaluators would agree
> in their application of the proposed success criterion" (across a wide
> range of cases, I assume, though this last point is usually left
> implicit). "
>
>
> All the best
>
> Lisa Seeman
>
> LinkedIn <http://il.linkedin.com/in/lisaseeman/>, Twitter
> <https://twitter.com/SeemanLisa>
>
>
>
>
> ---- On Thu, 02 Jun 2016 15:43:59 +0300 *White<jjwhite@ets.org
> <jjwhite@ets.org>>* wrote ----
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Patrick H. Lauke [mailto:redux@splintered.co.uk]
> > Sent: Thursday, June 2, 2016 4:57 AM
>
>
> > It may be a minor point, but: I'd prefer language that's a little
> less...specific.
> > Giving an actual figure of "8 out of 10" gives it a whiff of "it can be
> proven with
> > hard numbers", sure, but really: if there's ever a disagreement, do we
> really
> > expect somebody to gather 10 experts, get their opinions, and then make
> go for
> > the option that had 8 votes? What if it's 5 out of 10...a draw (which is
> probably
> > why you'd want 9 experts to be able to determine at least majority,
> barring
> > abstentions).
>
> In practice, the standard was: "participants in the working group, by
> consensus, are confident that 8 out of 10 informed evaluators would agree
> in their application of the proposed success criterion" (across a wide
> range of cases, I assume, though this last point is usually left implicit).
>
> So far as I am aware, no one has empirically tested the extent to which
> this standard is met by the success criteria that ultimately comprised WCAG
> 2.0.
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or
> confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual for whom
> it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received this e-mail
> in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute, or
> take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and delete
> it from your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited.
>
>
> Thank you for your compliance.
>
> ________________________________
>
>
>
>