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

Perhaps I didn't say it clearly... Our original discussions in WCAG 2 were
8/10. But in the end you won't find that in any normative document. We
settled with Our final language used High degree of confidence when testing
by people knowledgeable how people with disabilities use the webwe also
discuss usability.

Understanding Conformance Snip

 WCAG 2.0 Success Criteria are written as testable criteria for objectively
determining if content satisfies them. Testing the Success Criteria would
involve a combination of automated testing and human evaluation. The
content should be tested by those who understand how people with different
types of disabilities use the Web.

Testing and testable in the context refer to functional testing, that is
verifying that the content functions as expected, or in this case, that it
satisfies the Success Criteria. Although content may satisfy all Success
Criteria, the content may not always be usable by people with a wide
variety of disabilities. Therefore, usability testing is recommended, in
addition to the required functional testing. Usability testing aims to
determine how well people can use the content for its intended purpose. It
is recommended that users with disabilities be included in test groups when
performing usability testing.


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 11:08 AM, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
wrote:

> David: I think the concept of high inter reliability of experts is as good
> as we can get.
>
> AWK: I think that the "General agreement, characterized by the absence of
> sustained opposition to substantial issues” actually matches the way that
> the group operated in practice, and continues to do so.  What we are really
> doing is following the WCAG and W3C process (see
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/decision-policy), and our goal is unanimity, or
> an absence of objections.  Whether this means that everyone actively agrees
> or if most people agree and the rest can live with it doesn’t really
> matter.
>
> I’m concerned about the “8 of 10” since it starts to feel like voting and
> that hasn’t been the way that we have operated historically.
>
> AWK
>
> 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.
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>>
>