You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I do think that organizations will stop at the 95% mark. Call me cynical, but I think that’s true. I am not a technically skilled person in this area—is there a way to weight the views used most often in processes so that those have to be 100% compliant, but a few images in the periphery—used only in one, non-common process or something like that—could be missed without failing? I see that is somewhat addressed in the conformance section at the end, but isn't addressed here in the midst of the testing section.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
This is an interesting idea. Some members have expressed that it is easier to count exceptions rather than count all the things that comply. This possibly could apply to identifying the less important items rather than identifying all the important items. I would like to see the group working on defining processes, tasks, and critical errors look at this idea.
I do think that organizations will stop at the 95% mark. Call me cynical, but I think that’s true. I am not a technically skilled person in this area—is there a way to weight the views used most often in processes so that those have to be 100% compliant, but a few images in the periphery—used only in one, non-common process or something like that—could be missed without failing? I see that is somewhat addressed in the conformance section at the end, but isn't addressed here in the midst of the testing section.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: