W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wai-evaltf@w3.org > September 2011

Re: additional requirements

From: Kerstin Probiesch <k.probiesch@googlemail.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 08:27:47 +0200
Message-Id: <7EBD61DC-A11F-4D3F-A319-1F80EF8C72B0@gmail.com>
Cc: "public-wai-evaltf@w3.org" <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
To: "Velleman, Eric" <evelleman@bartimeus.nl>
Hi Eric, all,

I agree with both. Both are important for the transparance of a methodology. 

I propose to add 

"(Conformance  Level)" to Rx Support validity to make clear that not "private" interpretations of Conformance is meant.

Depending on the Methodology we develop later I propose to add "including the documentation of preliminary tests" to Rx Systematic. (if there will be tests like this)

Best

Kerstin


Am 21.09.2011 um 23:18 schrieb "Velleman, Eric" <evelleman@bartimeus.nl>:

> Hi all,
> 
> We could also consider:
> 
> * Systematic
> The Methodology requires a controlled process and documentation in such a way that the evaluation can be checked later.
> 
> * Support validity
> Evaluation method results are documented in a manner that it is later possible to see if what has been measured is valid to support a certain claim to conformance
> 
> Kindest regards,
> 
> Eric
> 
> 
> =========================
> Eric Velleman
> Technisch directeur
> Stichting Accessibility
> Universiteit Twente
> 
> Oudenoord 325,
> 3513EP Utrecht (The Netherlands);
> Tel: +31 (0)30 - 2398270
> www.accessibility.nl / www.wabcluster.org / www.econformance.eu /
> www.game-accessibility.com/ www.eaccessplus.eu
> 
> Lees onze disclaimer: www.accessibility.nl/algemeen/disclaimer
> Accessibility is Member van het W3C
> =========================
> 
Received on Thursday, 22 September 2011 06:28:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:52:12 GMT